466 HUGHLETT'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

only take subject to all the public rights of navigation, &c. which
he conld not in any manner obstruct or impair. Brown v. Ken-
nedy, 5 H. & J. 195; Blundell v. Catterall, 7 Com, Law Rep. 108.
* From which it necessarily follows, that if a public street
474 or road passes over any land belonging to the State, the
patentee of such land can only take subject to such right of way.
A wharf, in a public port, is, as to this matter, governed by the
same general principles of law. The use of a wharf, like that of
a road or a navigable river, may belong to the public, or it may
be held entirely separate from the soil itself, upon which the wharf
has been built. And, consequently, a grant of the State's title to
the land cannot, in any manner, affect a pre-existing right to the
use of the wharf any more than a grant of the bed of a navigable
river, or of the land over which a road passes, can affect the pre-
viously vested usufructuary interest of the public, or of any indi-
vidual. Godtitle v. Alker, 1 Burr. 143.

And, therefore, although it is in general true, that it is enough
to prevent the issuing of a patent, for the caveator to shew an out-
standing legal title any where, not belonging to the State; Ham-
mond. v. Godman, 1 Bland, 318, note; yet as no such title has been
shewn here, I am clearly of opinion, that a patent may well issue
for this strip of land; because the grantee can only take it, as it
is, subject to all the uses with which it may have been previously
charged.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the said caveat of the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore, against the said certificate of Isaac
McKim, &c. be and the same is hereby set aside and overruled
with costs, to be taxed by the register.

HUGHLETT'S CASE.
WARRANTS OF RESURVEY.

A right to take out a warrant of resurvey is an incident only of a legal
title derived from a patent, or of an imperfect legal title under a certi-
ficate compounded on.

Where the holder of a tract of land by a legal title, by a warrant of resur-
vey, takes in some contiguous vacancy, and then makes sale of the origi-
nal tract by its name and description, as the vacancy embraced by the
certificate, under the warrant of resurvey, does not thereby pass to the
purchaser, he cannot obtain a patent upon such certificate of resurvey.

THIS case arose in the land office on a petition by William
Hughlett, for a patent. It appeared; that Aaron Allford, holding
a patent for a tract of land containing three hundred and sixty-
five acres, by the name of Allford's Fancy, had obtained a war-