« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
THE NAMES OF THE CASES
REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
Alexandria, Bank of, (Page o.) (PROMISSORY Note.
Bailey v. Greenleaf, [CHANCERY. LIEN OF VENDOR.]
Crocket o. Lee, (Local Law. CHANCERY.]
622 Columbian lasurance Company u. Wheelright, (PRACTICE.] 634
Dorr v. T 60 Pacific Insurance Company, [INSURANCE.]
Evans d. Eaton, [PATEKE. EVIDENCE. PRACTICE.]
The Gran Para, (PRIZE.]
Hetticb, (Evans v.) [Patent. EviDENCE.)
Lindsey, (Watts v.) [Local Law. "CHANCERY.)
Lee, (Crocket v.) (Local Law. CHANCERY.]
Marbury v. Brooks, (FRAUD.]
1 23 122 164 630
Newsom v. Prior, (LOCAL Law.]
Prior, (Newsom v.) (Local Law.]
Union Bank of Alexandria, (Holbrook, v.) (Local Law.]
Watkins, (Green o.) [WRIT OF RIGHT.)
Zane, (Matthews d.) (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LOCAL Law.] 164
The case of the Society for Propagating the Gospel v. The Town of New-Haven, (argued by Mr. Hopkinson for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr Webster for the defendants in error ;) Green v. Biddle, (argued by Mr. Montgomery and Mr. B. Hardin for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Clay and Mr. Bibb for the defendant in error ;) Elmendorf v. Taylor, (argued by Mr. Talbot for the appellant, and by Mr. B. Hardin for the respondent ;) Hunt v. Rousmanier's Adm'r, (argued by Mr. Whea. ton for the appellant, and by Mr. Hunter for the respondent ;) were continued to the next term for advisement : and the case of the Nereyda, (arg ed by Mr. Harper and Mr. D. Hoffman for the appellant, and by Mr. Winder for the respondent,) was continued for farther proof.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1822.
[LOCAL LAW. CHANCERY.)
MILLER and Others v. KERR and Others,
A warrant and survey authorize the proprietor of them to demand the
legal title, but do not, in themselves, constitute a legal title: until the consummation of the title by a grant, the person who acquires ar
equity holds a right, subject to examination. Where the register of the land office of Virginia had, by mistake,
given a warrant for military services in the Continental line, on a certificate authorizing a warrant for services in the State line, and in recording it, pursued the certificate, and not the warrant, it was held that this Court could not support a prior entry and survey, on a war
rant thus issued by mistake, against a 'senior patent. Where the plaintiffs seek to set aside the legal title, because they have
the superior equity, it is consistent with the principles of the Court to rebut this equity by any circumstances which may impair it: and the legal title cannot be made to yield to an equity founded on the mistake of a ministerial officer.
This cause was argued and determined at the last term, but omitted to be reported.