
    Brown vs. Massey.
    The occupants south and west of congressional reservation line have no interest in the soil which can be sold by fi. fa. or be proceeded against in equity.
    Brown filed his bill in the chancery court at Pulaski against Massey, who was the owner of an occupant claim south and west of congressional reservation line, praying for sale of said claim. The sale was decreed and Brown became the purchaser. Brown then filed his bill for a decree for possession and an account of rents and profits. This was also decreed, and Massey appealed.
    
      Goode, for complainants.
    The act of 1832, ch. 11, sec. 4, gives the chancery court jurisdiction to subject legal and equitable interest in every species of stock and other property with the exceptions therein stated, of which this is not one — Nic. & Car. 223. This act is broad and embraces every kind of equity had in property with the exceptions mentioned.
    This court has assumed jurisdiction in the cases of the conflicting claims of occupants, and as between occupants and enterers. 6 Yer. Rep. Borland vs. Tipton Sf Davis, 438, Crisp vs. Kimble 446, Pettyjohn vs. Alters, 448 Frazier’s Lessee vs. Evans 452. In the case of Reese vs. Crochet and others, 8 Yerg. Rep. 129, the court interfered between two contending claimants of an occupancy, divesting the possession and title out of one and vesting it in another. It is competent for an occupant to sell and assign his right of occupancy, and the as-signee will be clothed with the same rights that belong to the occupants. Smith vs. RanJdn, 4 Yerg. Rep. 1.
    If chancery possesses and exercises jurisdiction over the rights and interests of occupants, if a right of occupancy is a good consideration for a contract or promise, and if it can be sold and assigned, cannot a court of chancery subject it to the payment of debts?
    But this bill is not filed to subject the occupancy to sale, but to determine upon the claims of two contending claimants to the possession; a power to do which, it is conceived, comes clearly within the jurisdiction of the court. Our reports are full of cases adjudicating upon occupant claims and possessions.
    ’ If a right of occupancy cannot be sold and possession acquired, it would open the door to great injury, injustice and fraud. It would be only necessary for a man in failing circumstances to invest his money in occupant claims, become the assignee of thousands of acres of valuable land held by right of occupancy; he would still be rich and his honest creditors set at defiance.
    
      Shields, for defendant.
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In 1838, Brown having obtained judgment against Massey, and caused fi-fa. to be issued thereon, filed his bill in chancery to have a certain occupant claim of Massey’s, south and west of the congressional reservation, subjected to sale for the satisfaction of his debt, and it was decreed accordingly, and Brown became purchaser at the Master’s sale, which was confirmed ánd a final decree rendered, purporting to divest the title of Massey and vest it in Brown.

Afterwards this bill was filed between the same parties, reciting the former decree and alledging that Massey would not surrender possession and praying that possession be decreed to be delivered up to complainant,, and for an account of rents and profits, and this was ordered and decreed accordingly, and an appeal prosecuted to this court. At the time these bills were filed the occupant claimant had no title or interest in the land, which could be sold by ays. fa. orbe proceeded against in equity. He was a trespasser upon the lands of the United States, and his actual possession and settlement would be prohibited by the laws and courts of the latter from the intrusion and wrongful action of others.

The State was bound on grounds of policy and for the sake of public repose, to keep the peace, as it were, among these intruders upon the lands of the United States, and prevent them from disturbing the possessions of each other. Thus far courts could go; thus far they went, and no farther. This has been repeatedly decided in the western division of the State, where these claims are more numerous, and litigation arising out of them more frequent, and several cases to that effect have been reported. The decree must be reversed and the bill dismissed.  