have remained and do remain entirely annulled and invalid; and that neither the three individuals mentioned, nor those who may have title or interest through them, can avail themselves of the said grants at any time or in any manner; under which explicit declaration, the said 8th article is to be understood as ratified." One of these grants, that to Vargas, lies west of the Perdido.

It has been argued, and with great force, that this explanation forms a part of the article. It may be considered as if introduced into it as a proviso or exception to the stipulation, in favour of grants anterior to the 24th of January, 1818. The article may be understood as if it had been written, that "all the grants of land made before the 24th of January, 1818, by his catholic majesty or his lawful authorities in the said territories, ceded by his majesty to the United States, (except those made to the duke of Alagon, the count of Punon Rostro and Don Pedro de Vargas,) shall be ratified and confirmed, &c."

Had this been the form of the original article, it would be difficult to resist the construction that the excepted grants were withdrawn from it by the exception, and would otherwise have been within its provisions. Consequently, that all other fair grants within the time specified, were as obligatory on the United States, as on his catholic majesty.

One other judge and myself are inclined to adopt this opinion. The majority of the court, however, think differently. They suppose that these three large grants being made about the same time, under circumstances strongly indicative of unfairness, and two of them lying east of the Perdido, might be objected to on the ground of fraud common to them all: without implying any opinion that one of them, which was for lands lying with in the United States, and most probably in part sold by the government, could have been otherwise confirmed. The government might well insist on closing all future controversy relating

to these grants, which might so materially interfere with its own rights and policy in its future disposition of the ceded lands; and not allow them to become the subject of judicial investigation; while other grants, though deemed by it to be invalid, might be left to the ordinary course of the law. The form of the ratification ought not, in their opinion, to change the natural construction of the words of the 8th article, or extend them to embrace grants not otherwise intended to be confirmed by it. An extreme solicitude to provide against injury or inconvenience, from the known existence of such large grants, by insisting upon a declaration of their absolute nullity, can in their opinion furnish no satisfactory proof that the government meant to recognise the small grants as valid, which in every previous act and struggle it had proclaimed to be void, as being for lands within the American territory.

Whatever difference may exist respecting the effect of the ratification, in whatever sense it may be understood, we think the sound construction of the eighth article will not enable this court to apply its provisions to the present case. The words of the article are, that "all the grants of land made before the 24th of January, 1818, by his catholic majesty, &c. shall be ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession of the lands, to the same extent that the same grants would be valid if the territories had remained under the dominion of his catholic majesty." Do these words act directly on the grants, so as to give validity to those not otherwise valid; or do they pledge the faith of the United States to pass acts which shall ratify and confirm them?

A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative

act.

It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished, especially so far as its operation is infraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.

In the United States a different prin

ciple is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, when ever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the court.

The article under consideration does not declare that all the grants made by his catholic majesty before the 24th of January, 1818, shall be valid to the same extent as if the ceded territories had remained under his dominion. It does not say that those grants are hereby confirmed. Had such been its language, it would have acted directly on the subject, and would have repeal ed those acts of congress which were repugnant to it; but its language is, that those grants shall be ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession, &c. By whom shall they be ratified and confirmed? This seems to be the language of contract; and if it is, the ratification and confirmation which are promised must be the act of the legislature. Until such act shall be passed, the court is not at liberty to disregard the existing laws on the subject. Congress appears to have understood this article as it is understood by the court. Boards of commissioners have been appointed for East and West Florida, to receive claims for lands; and on their reports titles to lands not exceeding acres have been confirmed, and to a very large amount. On the 23d of May, 1828, an act was passed supplementary to the several acts providing for the setment and confirmation of private land claims in Florida; the 6th section of which enacts, that all claims to land within the territory of Florida, embraced by the treaty between Spain and the United States of the 22d of February, 1819, which shall not be de

cided and finally settled under the foregoing provisions of this act, containing a greater quantity of land than the commissioners were authorized to decide, and which have not been reported as antedated or forged, &c., shall be received and adjudicated by the judge of the superior court of the district within which the land lies, upon the petition of the claimant," &c. Provided, that nothing in this section shall be construed to enable the judges to take cognizance of any claim annulled by the said treaty, or the decree ratifying the same by the king of Spain, nor any claim not presented to the commissioners or regis. ter and receiver. An appeal is allowed from the decision of the judge of the district to this court. No such act of confirmation has been extended to grants for lands lying west of the Perdido.

The act of 1804, erecting Louisiana into two territories, has been already mentioned. It annuls all grants for lands in the ceded territories, the title whereof was at the date of the treaty of St. Ildefonso in the crown of Spain, The grant in controversy is not brought within any of the exceptions from the enacting clause.

The legislature has passed many subsequent acts previous to the treaty of 1819, the object of which was to adjust the titles to lands in the coun try acquired by the treaty of 1809.

They cautiously confirm to residents all incomplete titles to lands, for which a warrant or order of survey had been obtained previous to the 1st of October, 1800,

An act, passed in April, 1814, confirms incomplete titles to lands in the state of Louisiana, for which a warrant or order of survey had been granted prior to the 20th of December, 1803, where the claimant or the person under whom he claims was a resi dent of the province of Louisiana on that day, or at the date of the concession, warrant, or order of survey; and were the tract does not exceed 640 acres. This act extends to those cases only which had been reported by the

case of the United States Bank vs. the Planters' Bank of Georgia,9 Wheaton, 904, was a much stronger case for the defendants than the present; for there, the state of Georgia was not only a proprietor but a corporator. Here the state is not a corporator, since by the terms of the act incorporating this bank, Kentucky acts of 1820, page 55, sec. 2, "the president and directors" alone constitute the body corporate, the metaphysical person liable to suit. Hence, by the laws of the state itself, it is excluded from the character of a party in the sense of the law when speaking of a body corporate.

On the subject of an interest in the stock of a bank, the language of this court, in the case cited, is this: "It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as it concerus the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself,

and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many states of the union which have an interest in banks, are not suable even in their own courts, yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The state of Georgia, by giving to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the bank, and waives all privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act."

To which it may be added, that if a state did exercise any other power in or over a bank, or impart to it its sovereign attributes, it would be hardly possible to distinguish the issue of the paper of such banks from a direct issue of bills of credit; which violation of the constitution, no doubt the state here intended to avoid.

Mr. Price, and Mr. Sergeant for the plaintiff, Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Peters for the defendant.

Mr. Justice Washington delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the supreme court of Pennsylvania. An ejectment was commenced by the defendant in error in the court of common pleas against Elisha Satterlee, to recover the land in controversy, and upon the motion of the plaintiff in error, he has admitted as her landlord, a defendant to the suit. The plaintiff, at the trial, set up a title under a warrant dated the 10th, of January, 1812, founded upon an inprovement in the year 1785, which it was admitted was under a Connecticut title, and a patent bearing date the 19th of February, 1813.

The defendant claimed title under a patent issued to Wharton in the year 1781, and a conveyance by him to John F. Satterlee in April, 1812. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that admitting the defendant's title to be the oldest and the best, yet he was stopped from setting it up in that suit, as it appeared in evidence that he had come into possession as tenant to the plaintiff some time in the year 1790. The courts of common pleas decided in favour of the plaintiff, upon the ground just stated, and judgment was accordingly rendered for her Upon a writ of error to the supreme court of that state, that court decided, in June, 1825, 13 Serge. & Rawle, 133 that by the settled law of Pennsylvania, the relation of landlord and tenant could not subsist under a Connecticut

title; upon which ground the judgment was reversed, and a venire facias de novo was awarded.

On the 8th of April, 1826, and before the second trial of this cause took place, the legislature of that state passed a law in substance as follows, viz. "that the relation of landlord and tenant shall exist, and be held as fully and effectually between Connecticut settlers and Pennsylvania claimants, as between other citizens of this commonwealth, on the trial of any cause now pending, or hereafter to be brought, within this commonwealth, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding."

Upon the retrial of this cause in the inferior court in May, 1826, evidence was given conducing to prove, that the land in dispute was purchased of Wharton by Elisha Satterlee, the father of John F. Satterlee, and that by his direction the conveyance was made to the son. It further appeared in evidence, that the son brought an ejectment against his father in the year 1813, and by some contrivance between those parties, alleged by the plaintiff below to be merely colourable and fraudulent, for the purpose of depriving her of her possession, obtained a judgment and execution thereon, under which the possession was delivered to the plaintiff in that suit, who immediately afterwards leased the premises to the father for two lives, at a rent of one dollar per annum. The fairness of the transactions was made a question on the trial, and it was asserted by the plaintiff that, notwithstanding the eviction of Elisha Satterlee under the above proceedings, he still continued to be her tenant.

The judge, after noticing in his charge the decision of the supreme court in 1825, and the act of assembly before recited, stated to the jury the general principle of law, which prevents a tenant from controverting the title of his landlord by showing it to be defective, the exception to that principle where the landlord claims under a Connecticut title, as laid down by the above decision, and the effect of the act of assembly upon that decision,

which act he pronounced to be binding on the court. He therefore concluded, and so charged the jury, that if they should be satisfied from the evidence, that the transactions between the two Satterlees before mentioned, were bona fide, and that John F. Satterlee was the actual purchaser of the land, then the defendants might set up the eviction as a bar to the plaintiff's recovery as landlord. But that if the jury should be satisfied that those transactions were collusive, and that Elisha Satterlee was in fact the real purchaser, and the name of his son inserted in the deed for the fraudulent purpose of destroying the right of the plaintiff as landlord; then the merely claiming under a Connecticut title, would not deprive her of her right to recover in that suit.

To this charge, of which the substance only has been stated, an exception was taken, and the whole of it is spread upon the record. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; and judgment being rendered for her, the cause was again taken to the supreme court by a writ of error.

The only question which occurs in this cause, which it is competent to this court to decide, is, whether the statute of Pennsylvania which has been mentioned of the 8th of April, 1826, is or is not objectionable, on the ground of its repugnancy to the constitution of the United States? But before this inquiry is gone into, it will be proper to dispose of a preliminary objection made to the jurisdiction of this court, upon the ground that there is nothing apparent on this record to raise that question, or otherwise to bring this case within any of the provisions of the 25th section of the judiciary act of

1789.

Questions of this nature have frequently occurred in this court, and have given occasion for a critical examination of the above section, which has resulted in the adoption of certain principles of construction applicable to it, by which the objection now to be considered may, without much difficulty, be decided. 2 Wheaton, 363. 4 Wheaton, 311. 12 Wheaton,