before taken, and the evidence taken since the continuance,
were read and considered, and the observations of the parties
thereon heard.
The caveat is entered by Richardson against the certificate
of Randall, returned on a special warrant, the land included
in which is claimed by the caveator under a warrant of
resurvey, which was issued prior to the special warrant, and, of
course, if Richardson should be entitled to a patent on the
certificate returned on such warrant of resurvey, the caveat
would be ruled good.
But it is alledged that Richardson had not at the date of the
warrant of resurvey such a seizin of the contiguous land as
would entitle him to the benefit of such warrant, and it
appears clearly from the evidence, that whatever his equitable
right or interest may have been, his legal title to the land
accrued after the date of the warrant.
Considering the nature and grounds of a warrant of
resurvey, and the established practice of the land office, the
chancellor is of opinion that the bond of conveyance, and the other
equitable circumstances adduced, were not sufficient to
entitle Richardson to the warrant of resurvey taken out by him
in this case, or that no right accrued to him thereby to the
land in question; and the execution of the deed afterwards,
(though, as stated by the caveators counsel, before the
execution of either warrant) cannot better his title; more
especially as it was improperly antedated.
The caveat of Thomas Richardson is therefore
dismissed;¾the costs to be paid by him:¾and if Randall is
otherwise entitled, by payment of the composition &c. there is
nothing to prevent his obtaining a patent.
Considering the determination on this caveat to have the
same effect as if on cross caveats, it follows that Richardson
is not entitled to a patent for the said land.
¾¾
MATTHIAS STEM )
agt. ) Caveat in the Land-office,
SAMUEL FARQUHAR,) June 24th, 1805.
The caveat, in this case, is on the ground that a part of the
land returned in the certificate, on the warrant of resurvey,
is included in a tract of land called Harle valley, the property
of the caveator. ¾This claim is endeavored to be supported
by the plat, shewing the running of that tract by course and
distance, for illustration, and by an allowance of 23
degrees
for variation, which the caveator alledges is proved to
correspond with the former location of the said land.
|