BALTIMORE v. McKIM—3 BLAND. 451

of the right. If the patent was refused, on account of the rules
of the office not having been complied with, still the Loid Pro

Lawyer for nine bundled and twenty acres of land, part of a greater war-
rant for two thousand thiee hundred and forty five acres, which said war-
rant, as is above alleged, and according to a record thereof, was found to
have been executed upon other lands before the assignment of the nine
hundred and twenty acres part thereof, unto Col William Coursey afore
said, but the petitioner also maintained, that it is also found, upon the same
record after the discovery of the imperfections of the warrant aforesaid,
and it is very probable, made by Col Coursey himself for the greater secu-
rity of his land, another entry is likewise found, next after the entry and
discovery afoiesaid, viz upon the 8th of May 1696, new caution is given
for the same, which the complainant saith she is humbly of opinion was
then accepted of by the Lord Proprietor as a full compliance with his con-
ditions of plantation, it never having been practised by his lordship, nor any
of his noble ancestors to take advantage of inadvertent slips or mistakes,
but always when discovered have allowed the liberty of amending the same,
as in this present case And the petitioner faither saith, that although it be
not expressly mentioned on the face of the lecords that the new caution
given was on the part of the said Col William Coursey, yet it is implied, as
a most consonant reason, that such new caution given for the mending the
defects in the warrant aforesaid did affect the assignment made unto Col
Coursey's part of that warrant, equally with all other parts thereof, it being
declared upon record, that new caution was given for the same

As to the second plea of the said Hemsley, that no common warrant would
affect cultivated lands which, as he alleged, are excepted in all such war-
rants, the complainant answereth and saith Notwithstanding it be at the
present, and for many years hath been the practice of the land office to
make an exception of all land already surveyed cultivated or reserved for
his lordship's use yet, that the practice of the office was not the same, at
the time af laying out the tract of land called Coursey upon Wye, the culti-
vated part whereof is now in dispute And she further asserteth, that all
common warrants, at the time of the making of that survey were qualified,
and gave sufficient power to the surveyors to lay'out, survey and make
returns of cultivated as well as uncultivated lands, as m the present case
now in dispute and to prove the practice of the office at the time of laying
out the tract aforesaid the complainant produced an original common war-
rant, dated the 20th of June, 1694 and signed by Col William Diggs and
Major Nicholas Sewall, secretaries of this Province, and eight months after
the time of making out of the common warrant for two thousand three
hundred and forty-five acres unto Col Peter Lawyer, out of which warrant
the assignment of nine hundred and twenty acres was made unto Col Cour-
sey aforesaid The complainant thereupon argued, that it had been the
ancient practice of the office to except such lands only as had been formerly
surveyed or resurveyed for bis lordship's use, but that all cultivated land
of which time, the lands, now in dispute, were subject to common warrants,
as well as clear vacant lands She therefore prayed, on behalf of her son, a
minor and legatee of Col William Coursey, deceased, that the special war-
rant for the two hundred and thirty acres of land aforesaid, so as before by
Vincent Hemsley obtained and executed upon the cultivation of that part
of the tract called Coursey upon Wye devised unto William Coursey a minor
as aforesaid, together with the certificate and other proceedings thereon,
might be declared null and void, and that an entry be made thereof in the