Page images
PDF
EPUB

1822.

Hoofnagle

V. Anderson

a place different from the entry, it is as if made without ac entry, and the holder of any other warrant has a right to take the land. A patent for this land, not founded on a previous entry, narrows his right of election ; yet it has always been held, that such patent, though it must yield to a prior entry, would hold the land against a subsequent entry. The entry, and not the warrant, has always been considered as the commencement of title.

The principle is well settled, in other cases, that a patent is unassailable by any title commenced after its emanation; and we perceive no sufficient reason against applying the principle to this case.

It is contended, also, by the appellants, that as the warrant refers to the certificate of the Executive, as the authority on which it issued, it conveys notice of the contents of this certificate to every purchaser. But this reference to the certificate of the executive appears on the face of every warrant, and contains no other information than is given by law. The law requires this certificate as the authority of the Register. It is considered as a formal part of the warrant. These warrants are, by law, transferrable. They are proved by the signature of the officer, and the seal of office. This signature and this seal are considered as full proof of the rights expressed in the paper. No inquiry is ever made into the evidence received by the public officer. If the purchaser of such a paper takes it subject to the risk of its having issued erroneously, there ought to be some termination to this risk. We think it ought to terminate when the warrant is completely merged in a patent,

[blocks in formation]

1822.

Brown

v. Jaokson.

and the title consummated without having encountered any adversary claim.

The title under this warrant was considered in the case of Miller v. Kerr and Others. In that case, the claimant under Powell had the junior patent, and the Court thought that the equity growing out of a prior entry night be rebutted by the person holding the legal title, by showing any defect in that equity; but nothing was said in that case which indicates an opinion that a complete legal title might be overthrown by an entry made after the consummation of that title.

Decree affirmed with costs.

(CHANCERY.]

BROWN and Others v. JACKSON.

The decisions of the board of Commissioners under the acts of Congress

providing for the indemnification of claimants to public lands in the
Mississippi Territory, (cominonly called the Yazoo lands,) are con-
clusive between the parties in all cases within the jurisdiction of the

Commissioners.
This determination reconciled with that of the Court in Brown v. Gil,

man, unte, vol. IV. p. 255.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of New-York.

This suit was brought in consequence of the decision of this Court in the case of Brown v. Gilman,

[blocks in formation]

Brown

and for the general history of the facts, reference was

1822. made to that case.

The bill charged, that on the 13th of January, Jackson. 1795, the State of Georgia was seised in fee of a certain territory within the boundaries of said State, &c. estimated to contain 11,380,000 acres, and bounded, &c.; that on the same day, by force of an act of the legislatue of said State, passed on the 7th of January, 1795, George Matthews, the Governor, by letters patent, conveyed said territory to Nicholas Long and others, and their associates, called the Georgia Mississippi Company, reserving 620,000 acres for the use of the citizens of Georgia ; that afterwards, on the 20th of January, 1796, certain articles of agreement were made between the defendant Amasa Jackson and William Williamson,authorized by said Company, to sell—and George Blake and sundry persons, who becanie the New-England Mississippi Land Company; that it was stipulated in the said articles, that on or before the 12th of February, then next, said Jackson and Williamson should fill up and complete to said B. and others, a deed of conveyance, (which had been executed by the G.M.Company in Georgia,) ot all the right and title of the G. M. Company, derived from the State of Georgia ; that said Blake and others agreed by the articles to deliver their notes for the payment of two cents for each acre of land by them subscribed for, previous to the first of May, then next; and for the further payment of one cent more for each acre, on or before the 1st of October, then next; and a further payment of two and a half cents per acre, within twelve months from said 1st of May; and a further payment of two and a half cents, &c. on the 1st.

1822.

Brown

V. Jackson.

of May, 1798; and a further payment of two cents more, on the 1st of May, 1799; in the whole, ten cents per acre, &c. And thereby it was agreed, that as soon as said deed should be prepared, &c. said deed should be delivered by said defendant, Jackson, to some person appointed by said parties, to be held as an escrow, on condition that if the notes or moneys due on the 1st of May, should not be paid, the deed should be re-delivered, and the associates should not be liable for the failure of each other; but if the notes were paid, the deed should be delivered to said Blake, &c. who were then to be severally liable for their own notes. That on the 11th of February, 1796, said Blake and others entered into articles of association, by the name of the N. E. M. L. Company, by which it was agreed that Leonard Jarvis, Henry Newman, and William Wetmore, should be a committee to receive a deed from the defendant Jackson, and William Williamson, of the said lands, belonging to the G. M. Company, for the use of the N. E. M. L. Company; and should execute to the several subscribers thereto, deeds of their respective proportions, to hold as tenants in common, and also, a deed of trust to trustees, &c. and a board of directors should be appointed ; and it was agreed the trustees should give each proprietor a certificate in the form, &c. which should be complete evidence, &c. and transferrable by endorsement. And to carry such articles of agreement into effect, a deed of indenture, dated 13th of February, 1796, purporting to be made by said Long and others, of one part, and Wetmorc, Jarvis, and Newman, of the other, was executed, whereby they conveyed said territory, (excepting

1822.

Browa

Jackson

said 620,000 acres,) to said W., J., and N., and the survivor, in fee; and was delivered to G. R. Minot, as an escrow, with an endorsement. The first payment to be made on the 1st of May, aforesaid, was duly made by every member, except, &c.; and the detendant Jackson, and Williamson, personally delivered said deed to said grantees, and endorsed theron, &c. “ free of conditions.” That prior to said absolute delivery, to wit, on the 10th of December, 1796, an agreement of two parts was entered into between the associates of the N. E. M. L. Company, and the defendant, Jackson, wherein it was agreed that certain proceedings of certain scrip-holders of the G. M. Company, being also members of the N. E. M. L. Company, so far, &c. should be void ; and that the associates of the N. E. M. L. Company should have no control over papers of the G. M. Company; but would deliver to the defendant, Jackson, so many of their certificates or scrip, as amount to 103,480 acres, computing the whole at 11,380,000, as an equivalent to the G. M. Coinpany, for a loss by failure of Seth Wetmore, &c. subscriber for 100,000, who had not paid-said defendant, Jackson, to be accountable to said associates for such portion of Wetmore's notes, if recovered, as was equivalent to the debt assumed to be paid, i. e. 10,348 dollars; and thereupon said defendant, Jackson, should deliver said deed of conveyance absolutely, and within, &c. procure from the G. M. Compary a confirmation, and deliver the same to said associates; and the defendant, Jackson, covenanted not to negotiate the notes until the confirmation was procured. And on the 17th of February, 1797, said defandant, Jackson, delivered to Wet

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »