years ago, it is plain, that every other line must have varied
just as much.
For instance, the 1st line of Black acre, patented 40 years
ago, is due north 100 ps; there is evidence that at the
original running, the line ended at a certain spot. It is now run,
and by going to that spot, it turns out to be N 2 ds. W. Is
it not plain, that the 2d line which was W must be W 2 ds.
S? &c. &c. &c.
In the present case the defendant has taken up all his 3
vacancies on arbitary allowances for variations, in one instance
of 3 in another of 2 degrees &c. &c. Commissioners indeed
are stated to have made some of these allowances; but it does
not appear, that their work is established.
Another consideration which the chancellor thinks entitled
to weight is this; the vacancies returned are so
inconsiderable, so narrow, and of such questionable shape, and lying
between patented tracts which evidently must have been
intended to touch each other, that every disinterested man, on
viewing them, and the said old tracts as delineated, would
exclaim " it is impossible that when the said tracts were
taken up those vacancies could exist."
It is a maxim, that " de minimis non curat lex." i. e. the law
pays no regard to the least things, or things of no moment.
One meaning of this maxim is, certainly, that judges ought
not to encourage controversies concerning things of no more
value than just to afford a party a ground for a law suit. From
allowing the defendant to take a patent the result would be
this: He might institute an ejectment against the caveator,
or the latter might sue the defendant.
The amount of the 3 distinct vacancies is only 10 5/8ths
acres! The party entitled must either give up his right or
expend more than its value. What must the loser expend? But
the consideration, alone, of the defendant's returning those
vacancies on an arbitrary, unfounded, variation of the elder
tracts, and the first beginning at the end of a line laid down
according to that variation, and of the other two vacancies
beginning at ends or parts of lines adopted by commissioners,
those works do not appear to be conclusive; this alone might
be deemed sufficient. But when all the considerations are
combined, the chancellor cannot, without betraying his sacred
trust, do otherwise than rule the caveat good: And by ruling
the caveat good he conceives that he does not violate the
principles of any decision made by himself or his
predecessor, or by the old judges of the land office. He conceives,
too, that his decision will be deemed to have a powerful
tendency to quiet possessions, and prevent law suits; and that
D D d
|