263 THE RAIL ROAD v. HOYE.

But it may be, that the claimant of River's Bend, at the lime he
made his location in the surveyor's book, had not any notice of
the erroneous survey of Clara Fisher; because that location is in

plainants have a right to the said patents for the said lands; and that the defendant
do surrender the said patent unto his lordship's land office, to be vacated accord-
ingly, with costs.

The said patents having been brought into court as directed,—

14th August, 1719.—Ordered, that the said patents be cancelled; which was done
by tearing the seals off in open court: and Ordered, that a certificate thereof be
made and sent to the provincial court, in order for their being noted in the records
thereof.—Chancery Proceedings, lib P. L. fol 419,445.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v, BIGGS.—This information was filed on the 9th of
August, 1796, by the attorney-general, at the relation of Richard Winchester and
James Winchester, against William Biggs. Its object was to have a patent vacated,
which had been obtained by the defendant. The defendant answered; a commission
was issued, under which depositions were taken and returned,—upon all which the
case was brought before the court.

28th February, 1801.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The said cause standing ready for
hearing, and coming on to be heard, the bill, answer, exhibits, depositions, and all
other proceedings, were by the Chancellor read, and the arguments of the counsel on
each side were by him heard and considered.

The complainants apply to this court to be relieved against a patent obtained by
the defendant, on the ground, that at the time of obtaining it, he had had notice of
the equitable title of Henry Zolf, to part of the land contained in the said patent,
which part had been comprehended in a certificate of a tract of land called The
Resurvey on Stoney Ridge, surveyed for the said Zolf, which the complainants are
entitled to by an assignment from Norman Bruce, to whom the said Zolf had
assigned, &c.

The defendant in his answer, expressly denies, that before obtaining his patent, he
had received notice of the said equitable title; and it is by no means clear, that,
agreeably to the rule established in this court, his answer can be considered as refuted.
But it is perfectly clear that Norman Bruce, who knew of the defendant's proceeding
to obtain his patent, and in whom the said equitable title was at that time vested,
permitted him to obtain his patent without making any objection, on account of the
said equitable interest; although he opposed the said Biggs on other grounds, and
actually obtained an order for the correction of Biggs' certificate, as it originally was
returned. Bruce then, under whom the complainants' claim, by another established
rule of this court, is to be considered as having forfeited all title to the aid of this
court, on the ground of notice. And the complainants surely cannot be considered
in a better situation than they would be in, if he had not made the assignment,—and,
claiming under him, they ought to have made a full investigation of the circumstances
attending bis title, before they filed their bill. In short, whatever would have been
decreed between the defendant and Bruce, in case Bruce had not assigned to them,
Is now to be decreed between them and the defendant.

Decreed, that the bill of Luther Martin, attorney-general, at the relation of Richard
and James Winchester against William Biggs, be and it is hereby dismissed; that
the said defendant William Biggs, be also hence dismissed; and that the said Richard
and James Winchester do pay unto him the by him sustained, in the defence
of their suit against him, amounting, as taxed by the register of this court, to the
quantity of three thousand eight hundred and seven pounds of tobacco.