United States v. Fullard-Leo

Background

The United States sued to quiet title to Palmyra, a remote atoll annexed to the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1862, after Congress authorized naval aviation construction there in 1939. Two Hawaiian citizens, Zenas Bent and Johnson Wilkinson, acted in 1862 under a commission from the King to take possession, and a proclamation declared Palmyra part of the King’s domain. No clear royal conveyance into private hands was found in the records, but Bent’s deed, Wilkinson’s will, and a chain of recorded conveyances beginning in 1885 show a continuous paper trail from the 1860s through transfers to Pacific Navigation Company, Henry Cooper, and ultimately Mr. and Mrs. Fullard‑Leo. Taxes were paid sporadically beginning in 1885 and more regularly after 1911, and a Hawaiian court and land registry proceedings recognized private claims.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the United States or the private claimants held fee simple title. Applying prior decisions, it accepted the doctrine that a long, exclusive, and open possession can support a presumption of a “lost grant” where a sovereign had power to convey. Examining the commission, the recorded conveyances, evidence of continuous claim, use of the island, and payments and registrations, the Court concluded the lower courts reasonably found the elements for the lost‑grant presumption and affirmed decrees quieting title in the private owners.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves Palmyra in private hands, which affects the Government’s plans to lease or develop naval facilities there and requires executive negotiation or purchase for any future use. It confirms that long private occupation, recorded transfers, and some public recognition can defeat a late sovereign claim.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the possession was often non‑actual and not sufficiently continuous, warning against extending the lost‑grant doctrine against government land.