452 MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

gether with the allowance thereof they the Said Complainants recited in their
Said bill of Complaint in the Same words or Substance already mentioned
and further by their bill Sugested that the grants aforesaid io Smidison were
made without having the Allegations of the Said Petition proved or Ever
Calling the Said William to Shoe any Cause to the Contrary and further by
their Said bill Set forth that they then Could fairly make it appear that the
Said Lands were Surveyed by a Lawfull Warrant and that the Warrant was
paid for And then Concluding Set forth that they hoped is [sic] Sufficiently
appeared that the Said Warrant was Issued Contrary to his Lordships Designe
and the Intent of the order of Councill whereupon 'twas Supposed to be
founded and further prayed that the Said Patent might be Vaccated

Whereto the appellants father by his answer Set forth the Severall mat-
ters herein before alledged in his Said Answer to w^ch Said answer there
was a Replication and Rejoinder upon Which Commission Issued to Ex-
amine Evidences in the Cause as by the Records thereof Lodged in this
Hon^rble Court may appear and for brevity Sake the appl^ts Most humbly pray
to be referred to and on the Second Tuesday of October Anno Dom 1718 the
Cause was heard in Chancery And it was Decreed that Thomas Smithsons
Patent for the Lands in the Bill Mentioned be Vaccated And the Comp¹¹³
Should have a Right to the Said Patents for the Said Lands and that the
Defend^t doe Surrender the Said Patent into his Lordships Land office to be
Vacated Accordingly With Cost

Which Said Patents were Vacated by Virtue of the foregoing Decree.
Now inasmuch as the Said Decree of the Said Court of Chancery is grounded
upon a Supposition that the Said Thomas Smithson the Patentee Obtained
the Said Patents upon fraudulent Alligations altho no Such thing was made
appear by the Comp"⁸ and Altho in Reality George Seward had
never any Just right to the Said Lands and that the Said Thomas Hicks Was
a purchaser for a Valuable Consideration under the Lord Proprys Patentee.
The appellants Were therefore advised that the Said Decree is unjust and
Against the Rules of Law and Equity And that the Same Decree Ought to be
reversed and the appellants put in as good a posture as if the Said Decree
never had been made It appearing from the Whole proceedings in Chancery
that the Said Thomas Smithson the Patentee Obtained the Said patents upon
Just and true Suggestions from Lawfull Officers and those in Authority to
grant the Same and the Said W^m Seward had Oppertunity given him in his
Lordships Land Office to Shew his right if any he had to the Said Lands
According to Custom of Said office. And Your Petitioners are advised that
the Said Decree is also unjust in this that appears from the proceedings that
your Petitioners Father was only intituled to half of the Lands Contained in
the Tracts Called Sector and Camberlake and that Said decree was to Vacate
the Whole without making any other parties to the Suit who perhaps might
have Cleared up all dificulties if any there were which your Petitioners father
[652] being only a purchaser as af^d might not have been privy thereto.