| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 536 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
536 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. The Chancellor does not think that upon a mere suggestion of error like this he would be justified in suspending the deci- sion of a question affecting the rights of other parties, who, hav- ing complied with the regulations of the land office, ask to have their titles perfected. The right of Mr. Wilson to have his certificate corrected, so as to throw out the land to which he is not entitled, and take that to which he is, and which at the time of his survey, or of his warrant, (in case the title commences with the warrant,) had not been located by the warrant of another party is one thing. But his right to have this done, and also to keep open the ques- tion whether a correction is necessary, is another and a very different thing. If Mr. Wilson, conceding he has concluded in his survey, land which was not subject to his warrant, asks to have it cor- rected, this may be done, and he will be entitled to a patent for the land which his warrant did reach, provided some other per- son had not acquired a previous title thereto, according to the laws of the land office. But when a party asks for a correction he must be understood as admitting that there is something to correct. He cannot be allowed when making such an applica- tion to say, if you will give me an opportunity I will show that there is no necessity for a correction at all. The right rests upon a conceded error and can only be claimed upon that con- cession. My opinion, therefore, is, that the caveats to "Conway," must be ruled good, and if the defendant thinks proper, he may have an order correcting his certificate to the effect and for the purpose before mentioned. These views are believed to be in accordance with the case of Hoffman vs. Walker, already referred to, and that of Issacher & Schofield vs. Beall, Landholders' Assistant, pp. 420, 421. I do not find any thing urged by the caveator, or in fact, among the proceedings, any objection to the certificate for "Sacramento," and, therefore, that caveat must be overruled. With regard to the certificate for "Summit Point," the ob- jection rests upon the allegation that it includes Lot No. 1168, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 4, Page 536 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