Additional answers of Alexander Contee Hanson to the Defendant's first 6 interrogatories.     1st. If there be no caveat, or known objection to a certificate of resurvey, the owner, of course, obtains in due time a patent. If there be a caveat, he cannot obtain a patent unless he can shew himself in some way entitled to the tract or tracts on which the warrant issued. As to the term " seized" I know not well what to say; and lawyers may differ as to its import. I give this answer in addition to my former answer; and it is suggested by an interrogatory on the part of the plaintiff.     2nd. The want of seizin or title to the land resurveyed I conceive is a good ground to vacate a resurvey. There has indeed been no decision that I recollect, in my time, where a caveat against a certificate of resurvey has been ruled good on the ground of no seizin or title in the owner. But possibly the register may recollect such a decision. I have understood that the question was settled under the proprietary government, and, upon principle, I am satisfied the decision was right. At least I consider it as an established rule that the owner, on caveat, must shew seizin or title, or lose the benefit of his resurvey.     3d. The fact stated, I conceive sufficient to preclude the owner of the certificate from a grant on the certificate.     4th. In this case, I am satisfied there has been a decision, and I have always considered it as a settled rule that whatever has been done under an improper warrant, or under the pretext of a warrant not authorising it, is to be held, on caveat, void ; that is to say the younger certificate is on the same footing as if the elder certificate had never been made. To illustrate this I state a case¾ A takes out a special warrant, describing the land so as to designate his intent with respect to beginning: The land he surveys is divided into two distinct parts by an elder tract: Afterwards B surveys the part so cut off from the beginning. B shall obtain a patent, notwithstanding the land has been before surveyed.     5th. No. There is no such law or practice of the land office¾ Nor is it the absolute rule that the caveat shall be admitted. Circumstances have always governed me. If the caveator has no interest, I consider the interest of the state, and the rules of the office. If neither that interest is affected nor wholesome rules violated, such as that 2 distinct tracts shall not be contained in one patent, unless in particular cases &c. &c. I dismiss the caveat.     6th. No additional answer. ¾¾     7th Question. Upon a special warrant, if there is vacancy not contiguous, and the party makes two surveys and returns