| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 493 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
CHAPMAN VS. HOSKINS. 493 could make out a title under that patent. But if this were doubtful, how can it be possible to dispute his title, when the long, uninterrupted, and unmixed possession of himself and those under whom he claims is considered. That his title, founded on this possession, is impregnable against any title which the state can grant, is conclusively shown by the acts of 1818, ch. 90 and 1849, ch. 424. I cannot concur in the argu- ment that Mr. Chapman must be considered as having surren- dered his previous title by taking out a warrant for "Craney Island" in 1836. If the argument is sound, then, any person who takes out a warrant to affect a parcel of land, supposing it to be vacant, must proceed to perfect his title under it, though he subsequently ascertains that the land he proposed to take up, is not vacant, but is included within the lines of land to which his title is undisputed. By failing or omitting to proceed according to the rules of the land office, to perfect his title under the warrant of 1836, Mr. Chapman did nothing more than abandon his title founded upon that warrant, and it would, I think, be pressing his omis- sion to a most unreasonable extent, to say, that he shall not only lose his title resting upon the warrant, but that he shall also be regarded as surrendering to the state, any title, how- ever good, and absolute, which he may have possessed previ- ously. Suppose, after taking out the warrant of 1836, he dis- covered, or was advised, (as is probably the case,) that his title to "Craney Island" was good, as founded either upon the patent for "Grimes' Ditch" or upon the long possession of himself, and those under whom he claims. Is there any prin- ciple of law or justice which would compel him at the hazard of forfeiting his title, to go on with his warrant ? Why should he be required to pay the state for land which he discovered belonged to him already ? Or why should he be compelled to take a new title, subject to all the risks and disadvantages which its recent origin would bring with it when he ascertain- ed he already held a title, sanctified, and confirmed by nearly a century The caveator then having, in my opinion, a good title to 43 |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 493 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives