TABLE ог THE NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. A Alexandria, Bank of, (Page v.) [PROMISSORY NOTE.] 35 212 496 B Bailey v. Greenleaf, [CHANCERY. LIEN OF VENDOR.] 46 122 Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright, [PRACTICE.] 534 M 556 58 520 1 23 122 164 530 Massie, (Bouldin v.) [LOCAL LAW. EVIDENCE.] Matthews v. Zane, [CONSTITUTIONAL AND LOCAL LAW.] N Newsom v. Prior, [LOCAL LAW.] P Prior, (Newsom v.) [LOCAL LAW.] Page v. the Bank of Alexandria, [PROMISSORY NOTE.] 7 7 37 582 Union Bank of Alexandria, (Holbrook, v.) [LOCAL LAW.] 553 W Watkins, (Green v.) [WRIT OF RIGHT.]. 27 59 158 534 Zane, (Matthews v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL AND LOCAL LAW.] 164 MEMORANDA. 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. REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS IN THE 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 an 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 warrant 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. |