CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

to comply with the conditions of plantation ;(i) as where, under a
warrant of resurvey, two or more distinct tracts, not contiguous by
means of vacancy or otherwise, were attempted to be included in
one patent,( j) or where the special warrant contained more than one
location ;(k) or because the facts and circumstances set forth in the
proceedings were, in some material particular, irregular, or untrue;
as that the survey had not been made according to the rules of the
Land Office; or, as in case of an alleged escheat, that the late
owner had not died intestate and without heirs as averred by the
applicant,(1) or if the lands are actually escheatable, that the per-

Upon the whole, it is adjuged, ordered, and decreed, that the caveat of the said
Charles Ridgely against Horatio Johnson's certificate of a tract of land, called
Johnson's Meadows, be, and it is hereby declared to be, allowed, and ruled good.
x (i) Land Ho. Ass. 327,453; 1795, ch. 88, s. 11; Lloyd v. Tilghman, 1 H. & McH.
86; Hammond v. Ridgely, 5 H. & J. 263.

(j) Land Ho. Ass. 390, 421, 422, 447; West v. Hughes, 1 H. & J. II & 13.

(k) Land Ho. Ass. 444.

(Z) Land Ho. Ass. 381.

AISQUITH v. GODMAN.—It appears from the statement of facts agreed on by the
parties, that of lot No. 40, in the city of Baltimore, a certain William Nieholson was
seized in fee simple on the 20th of June, 1761; and, being so seized, he made his
will, and thereby devised it to his niece Elizabeth Connell, in fee tail general,
remainder to his brother John Nieholson, of the county of Cumberland, in England,
and his heirs; which said John Nieholson never was a citizen of the State of Mary-
land ;—That William Aisquith, the caveator, intermarried with Elizabeth Connell,
the devisee, by whom he had issue a son, John Aisquith;—that Elizabeth Aisquith
died on the first of January, 1782, leaving her husband, the present caveator, in
possession of the lot, and their only child, John Aisquith, who died intestate and
without issue on the 1st of July, 1785. It is further stated, that the caveator
took out a warrant of escheat on the 15th of October, 17S5, to affect said lot,
and returned a certificate thereof, but did not compound thereon; and the caveatee,
Samuel Godman, on the 3d of June, 1796, proclamated the said certificate, and
returned his certificate thereof to the office on the 29th of May, 1797; on which
the said Aisquith entered a caveat against a patent issuing thereon; alleging, that by
the laws of this country, the said lot is not liable to be affected by an escheat warrant,
and is not escheatable.

24th, May, 1798.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The said caveat being submitted to the
Chancellor, on a statement of facts, signed by the counsel on each side, the said
statement, and the certificate, and all other papers thereto relative, were by the
Chancellor read and considered.

It appears to him, that the facts contained in that statement are conclusive for the
caveator. It is stated, that Elizabeth, the wife of the caveator, being tenant in (all
of the land in question, died in 1782, leaving one child only, a son, who died without
issue in 1785; that alter her death a warrant of escheat was taken out by the
caveator, who returned a certificate; and that, on his failing to compound, the
defendant took out a warrant of proclamation, and returned the certificate which is
caveated.

There is no rule in this office better established than this,—that the validity of a
proclamation warrant must depend on the warrant, under which the land intended to