Page images
PDF
EPUB

Courts of equity will; and will
give validity to the elder entry
against the elder patent. Finley
v. Williams,

15. An equity of redemption in Ma-
ryland, was liable to attachment
before the Maryland act of 1810,
ch. 60. Pratt v Law and Camp-
bell,

459

ERASURE.

164
10. It is error to decide a cause
against the answer of the Defen-
dant, if the answer be not denied
by a replication, nor contradicted
by evidence. Gettings v. Burch, See Bond, 3,

372

458

ERROR.

28

1. It is not necessary that the trans-
cript of the record should contain
the names of the jurors. Owens
v. Hannay,

2. See Alien enemy,

180

180

3. If the facts stated in a plea do not
amount to a justification in law,
yet, if issue be joined thereon, and
if the facts be proved as stated, it
is error in the judge to instruct the
jury that the facts so proved did
not, in law, maintain the issue on
the part of the Defendant. Otis
v. Watkins,

4. See Equity, 10,

ESCAPE.

339
372

If a debtor, committed to the state
jail, under process from à Court of
the United States escape, the mar-
shal is not liable. Randolph v.
Donaldson,

11. In a case where it would be diffi-
cult to ascertain the injury result-
ing from the breach of contract,
or the sum in damages which
would be a compensation for such
injury, a Court of equity will not
themselves ascertain the injury,
nor the damages, nor direct an is-
sue quantum damnificatus. Pratt
v. Law and Campbell,
457
12. Where a contract for the sale of
land has been in part executed by
the vendor who is unable to convey
all the land, a Court of equity
will decree re-payment of a pro-
portionate part of the purchase
money with interest. Pratt v.
Law and Campbell,
13. If three persons mortgage their
joint property to indemnify the
drawer of bills of exchange for
their accommodation, in case of
protest; and if each of the mort-
gagors agrees to take up a third
part of the bills upon their return
under protest, and if two of them
neglect to take up their two thirds,
whereby the other mortgagor is
compelled to take up the whole of See Bond, 2,
the bills, in consequence of which
he requests the drawer not to re-
lease the mortgage, but to hold it
for his benefit, a lien in equity is
thereby created upon the mortga-
ged premises to the amount of two
thirds of the bills, in favor of that
mortgagor who took up the whole.
Pratt v. Law and Campbell, 459
14. Quere, whether a subsequent in
cumbrancer can compell a prior
incumbrancer to disclose the con-
sideration which he gave for the
notes of the debtor upon which his
incumbrance was founded? Pratt
v. Law and Campbell,

VOL. IX.

459

ESTOPPEL.

EVANS, OLIVER

76

28

The act of January, 1808, for the re-
lief of Oliver Evans, does not au-
thorize those who erected his ma-
chinery between the expiration of
the old patent and the issuing of
the new one, to use it after the is-
suing of the latter. Evans v. Jor-
dan,
199

EVIDENCE.

1. A material alteration of a bond
may be made by consent of all par-

65

[blocks in formation]

pay him the balance; A. after See Church of England.
wards sues C. for the amount re-
ceived upon the bill; B is a com-
petent witness for A. Taber v.
Perrott and Lee.

39

GRANT.

See Land, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21.

[blocks in formation]

209

246

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

INJUNCTION.

19.

[blocks in formation]

EXECUTION.

FREE GOODS.

See Admiralty, 28, 29,

389

FREE SHIPS.

See Admiralty, 16, 28, 29.

FREIGHT.

INSOLVENT.

153

1. See Equity, 6,
2. Semb. that a discharge under the
act of assembly of Rhode-Island,
(of 1756,) from all debts, duties,
contracts and demands, outstand-
ing at the time of such discharge,
upon surrender of all the debtor's
property, will not protect him a-
gainst a debt contracted in a fo-
reign country. Clark's executors
v. Van Reimsdyk,

If a neutral vessel be captured on
her outward voyage from England
to Amelia Island, carrying a hos-
tile cargo, which is condemned,
and if by the charter-party the
outward cargo is to be carried free
of freight, but the homeward car-
go is to pay at a certain rate to be
ascertained by the nature of the
cargo, yet the court will decree See Admiralty, 10,

3. See Priority of payment,

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

3. The act of North Carolina, 1783,
c. 2, opening the land office, did
not prohibit a person from making
several different entries, amount-
ing in the whole to more than 5000
acres, nor from purchasing the
rights acquired by others by en-
tries; nor from uniting several en-
tries in one survey and patent;
and such union of several entries is
allowed by the act of 1784, ch. 19,
Polk's lessee v. Wendell, 87
4. In a patent, the obliteration of the
consideration does not make void
the grant. Folk's lessee v. Wen-
del!,
5. A patent justifies a presumption
that all the previous requisites of
the law have been complied with.
Polk's lessee v. Wendell, 87
6. A patent is void at law if the state
had no title, or if the officer, who
issued the patent, had no authority
so to do. Polk's lessee v. Wendell,
88
7. In North Carolina, the want of
an entry nullifies a patent. Polk's
lessee v. Wendell,
88

87

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

12. Between pre-emption rights, the
prior improvement will hold the
land against a prior certificate,
entry, survey and patent Finley
v. Williams,
164

13. It is not essential to the dignity
of an entry upon a pre-emption
warrant, that the entry should, in
terms, call for the improvement,
although it must in fact include
the improvement. Finley v. Wil-
liams,
165
14. An entry calling for "the big
"bone lick;" will not support a
survey and patent for land at the
upper blue lick; the lower blue
lick being generally called "the
"big blue lick;" although there
may be other calls in the entry
which seem to designate the up-
per blue lick as the place intend-
ed. Finley v. Williams,
15. If there be nothing in the patent
to control the call for course and
distance, the land must be bound-
ed by the courses and distances of
the patent according to the mag-
netic meridian. M'Iver's lessee
v. Walker,
173
16. Course and distance must yield
to a call for natural objects. M'I-
ver's lessee v. Walker,
173

165

17. All lands are supposed to have
been actually surveyed, and the
intention of the grant is to convey
the land according to the actual
survey. M Iver's lessee v. Wal-
ker,
173

18. If a patent refer to a plat annex-
ed, and if in that plat a water-
course be laid down as running
through the land, the tract must
be so surveyed as to include the
water course, and to conform, as
near as may be, to the plat, al-
though the lines thus run do not

correspond with the courses and
distances mentioned in the patent,
and although neither the certifi-
cate of survey, nor the patent,
calls for that water-course. M'-
Iver's lessee v. Walker,

173
19. Quere, whether parol evidence
can be given that the surveyor in-
tended to express the courses ac-
cording to the true, and not ac-
cording to the magnetic, meridian.
MIver's lessee v. Walker, 174
20. This Court has jurisdiction where
one party claims land under a
grant from the state of New
Hampshire, and the other under a
grant from the state of Vermont,
although, at the time of the first
grant, Vermont was part of New
Hampshire. Town of Pawlet v.
Clark,

292

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »