246 THE RAILROAD v. HOYE.—2 BLAND.

But it may be, that the claimant of River's Bend, at the time he
made his location in the surveyor's book, had not any notice of

very fraudulent allegations, had obtained a special warrant to resurvey the
land in the bill mentioned, and patent granted thereupon,—it is therefore
Decreed, that Thomas Smithson's patent for the lands in the bill mentioned,
be vacated, and that the complainants have a right to the said patents for
the said lands; and that the defendant do surrender the said patent unto his
lordship's land office, to be vacated accordingly, with costs.
The said patents having been brought into Court as directed,—

14th August, 1719.—Ordered, that the said patents be cancelled; which
was done by tearing the seals off in open Court: and Ordered, that a certifi-
cate thereof be made and sent to the Provincial Court, in order for their
being noted in the records thereof.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 419,
445.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. BIGGS.—This information was filed on the 9th
of August, 1796, by the Attorney-General, at the relation of Richard Win-
chester and James "Winchester, against William Biggs. Its object was to
have a patent vacated, which had been obtained by the defendant. The
defendant answered: a commission was issued, under which depositions
were taken and returned,—upon all which the case was brought before the
Court.

HANSON, C., 28th February. 1801.—The said cause standing ready for hear-
ing, and coming on to be heard, the bill, answer, exhibits, depositions, and
all other proceedings, were by the Chancellor read, and the arguments of
the counsel on each side were by him heard and considered.

The complainants apply to this Court to be relieved against a patent ob-
tained by the defendant, on the ground, that at the time of obtaining it, he
had had notice of the equitable title of Henry Zolf, to part of the land con-
tained in the said patent, which part had been comprehended in a certificate
of a tract of land called The Eesurvey on Stoney Eidge, surveyed for the
said Zolf, which the complainants are entitled to by an assignment from
Norman Bruce, to whom the said Zolf had assigned, &c.

The defendant in his answer, expressly denies, that before obtaining his
patent, he had received notice of the said equitable title; and it is by no
means clear, that, agreeably to the rule established in this Court, his answer
can be considered as refuted. But it is perfectly clear that Norman Bruce,
who knew of the defendant's proceeding to obtain his patent, and in whom
the said equitable title was at that time vested, permitted him to obtain his
patent without making any objection, on account of the said equitable inte-
rest; although he opposed the said Biggs on other grounds, and actually
obtained an order for the correction of Biggs' certificate, as it originally
was returned. Bruce then, under whom the complainants claim, by another
established rule of this Court, is to be considered as having forfeited ali title
to the aid of this Court, on the ground of notice. And the complainants
surely cannot be considered in a better situation than they would be in, if
he had not made the assignment,—and, claiming under him. they ought to
have made a full investigation of the circumstances attending his title,
before they filed their bill. In short, whatever would have been decreed
between the defendant and Bruce, in case Bruce had not assigned to them,
is now to be decreed between them and the defendant.

Decreed, that the bill of Luther Martin, Attorney-General, at the relation
of Richard and James Winchester against William Biggs, be and it is hereby