LAND-HOLDER'S ASSISTANT.
|
417
|
5, 1794¾no survey having been made under it, and of course,
the land not compounded on before the 6th day of July 1795,
the caveator was the first and only applicant for a warrant
after the expiration of the time allowed for compounding; and
Grammar's warrant having issued before the expiration of the
time, is entitled to no more consideration than if its date had
been cotemporary with Gilpin's warrant. Grammar,
however, contends, that as he proceeded according to the records
of the office, and the mistake was not in the record, but in the
warrant, he ought to prevail. Should this be the case, he
would be allowed to profit from the mistake of the register, in
a transaction to which he was not a party, and in which he
had no interest. Again¾the chancellor has intimated that,
had Gilpin executed his warrant, he might have compounded
on the land, after the date of Grammar's warrant, at any time
before the 6th of July 1795. It would be absurd to suppose
this and to suppose, at the same time, that Grammar's
application was not premature.
Upon the whole, it is adjudged and ordered, that the caveat
of Samuel Selby against Frederick Grammar's certificate of
a tract of land in Alleganv county, called " the Lilley" be,
and it is hereby, adjudged and ruled good.
¾¾
THOMAS JOHNSON)
vs ) In the Land-office; June 18, 1799.
ADAM HAWN )
The caveator objects to the certificate on the ground that
the land comprehended in the certificate is contained in an elder
grant. This elder grant describes the beginning of its land
to be at a particular tree, standing a certain number of perches
from the beginning of a line, in each of two other tracts of
land, and it besides has several calls.
The caveator contends that the beginning is at a place, far
distant from the beginning contended for by the defendant;
and, by either of the beginnings, all the calls cannot be gratified.
It appears, that the deputy surveyor who was supposed to
have originally surveyed the land has sworn to the beginning
insisted on by the caveator: but there is testimony produced
to refute or discredit the surveyor's evidence. In short,
supposing the chancellor were the proper and sole judge of
location, it would be extremely difficult for him to decide on the
running of the said elder tract : and it seems extremely
uncertain how any tribunal whatever will ascertain the lines.
The chancellor conceived that the established rule, in cases of
this kind, was too generally known for the caveator to contend
against placing the defendant in a situation to have the dispute
C C c
| |
|
![clear space](../../../images/clear.gif) |