|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUGHLETT'S CASE, 475
resurvey, by which he included ninety acres of vacancy, making in
the whole four hundred and fifty-five acres \ which tract, in the cer-
tificate of resurvey, is called Aaron's Addition. Aaron Allford
fully compounded for the vacancy; and afterwards died leaving an
only child, Sarah, his heir; who married Richard Cooper, and had
issue, Ezekiel Cooper and Sarah Cooper. After which Richard
Cooper and wife died; and these lands descended to their two
children. Sarah Cooper married Charles Buckmaster. And on
the 10th of January, 1824, Ezekiel Cooper and wife, and Charles
Buckmaster and wife conveyed the tract called Allford's Fancy, by
a special reference to the patent for its boundaries, to Henry M.
Goodwin, who, on the 25th of July, 1825, conveyed the same tract,
specially describing it, to William Hughlett, the petitioner, who
by this, his petition, prayed for a patent on the certificate for Aaron's
Addition.
5th January, 1828. —BLAND, Chancellor, (a)—It is clear, that
the right to take out a warrant of resurvey for the purpose of in-
cluding contiguous vacancy is incident to every legal title to land.
But it is an incidental right which belongs to the holder of the
legal, not of the equitable title to the estate. If Aaron Allford had
bound himself to convey Allford's Fancy to the petitioner; and
had, afterwards, taken advantage of his being the mere legal holder
to obtain the contiguous vacancy to the tract he had thus sold; but
for some peculiar circumstances, equity would compel him to con-
vey to the purchaser all the land he had thus obtained by virtue of
the right incident to the legal title. (6)
Here, however, the holder of the perfect legal title to Allford's
Fancy, by virtue of the certificate returned and compounded on,
has obtained a good, but imperfect title to ninety acres as an addi-
tion to that tract. In some respects the title under a mere certifi-
cate is considered as equal to a perfect legal title. The land, thus
held, descends as realty to the heirs of the deceased holder; and
the patent, when called for, issues to them accordingly. A title by
certificate is not a mere chattel interest. It is an imperfect legal
title, not a mere equitable interest; for, when the patent is obtained,
the formal legal title conveyed by it relates back to the date of the
certificate, and vests the legal title in the patentee, by relation,
from that time. A right to include contiguous vacancy is an incident
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) This case was, by an oversight, not inserted in its proper chronological order, -—
(b) Hoffman v. Johnson, 1 Bland, 108; Cunningham v. Browning, 1 Bland, 325.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
