Armstrong v. Morrill

Armstrong Cfc. v. Morrill. Syllabus. in it was so liable, case was held

steamer dark though not be seen till close to her, could barge though at avoid with the time steamer was contact to. seeking their other out of Where vessels docks. coming ques tion fault in a collision lies a at anchor, .of vessel between not vessels, of other dere wharf, a out of track at of sufficient a a channel lict in duty, navigating steamer no her at width for move stop being to pleasure —there drive stress weather or force to superior unusual in cited was held the case her course —it just out of letter almost, would be circumstances, any fault, In case we see no fault at be with held to steamer. She had a Evans. competent night all Margaret as to be considered safe board, and was entitled on watchman East River. vessels fi'om collision any navigating from interest costs. with Decree affirmed Armstrong Morrill. v. sustained, a single plaintiff, in in where ejectment, favor Judgment 1. alone, alleged in himself at possession declaration a counts in the some alleged ouster, other though counts the time no others; having been motion there jointly him with have been objection made below judgment judgment or other arrest finding. mentioned, verdict thus which was one form does not vest trustee making of a one trustee deed to mere trust; and to show accepted if form have any he never seal, declaration, it, but not under accept did the trustee deed, to all making known whom by him, years nine after the signed concerned, receiving immediately notice of the con bis “that the matter accept, trust or to act under the intended positively veyance he did refuse created, accepted acted in the trust or time since he had ut no and that it,” fact, the prbper trustee in relation evidence show aswise handwriting his proved. being dead party 2d, 1788, Virginia, authorizing governor t of June the act of 3. Under o surveys reservation of claims to lands included'within grants with issue excludes under the act patents granted made, the reservation then at the held claimants of the lands operation patent, whether boundary exterior within the survey, date perfected grants. had been only the title inchoate

Dec. of the case. Statement to, forfeited of B. were lands of. A. 4. Where the for declaring February, act of 27th under its Virginia the State subsequent aby taxes, allowed but were non-payment feitures owner, the for held that original be redeemed act private law, of the adverse continuity broke, point in State to the feiture been, might have (though it poss.ession adverse that such possession, been, broken, re-tored was neither tinuous) lpw, in thus fact, having con in law, it so affected nor was in so as to be continuous redemption possession adverse adversely tack the holding could persons as that re to, subsequent possession to the forfeiture a statute make a term of adverse and so demption out. title. give in order required West for Court the United.States District Error case been thus: having Virginia; of April, on the 15th Morrill ejectment, Lot.M. brought Vir the Western District.of Court for in the District 1857, circuit court juris both court having below), ginia (now acres to recover 1500 others, diction, Armstrong against ofjand. he was Morrill In one count possessed alleged entered; in another, the defendants it when wrongfully were so possessed. Dundas and Benjamin Kngler that James count, in its first the pos An amended alleged, declaration Dundas, and Morrill, been jointly Kugler; session a been in alone. In new to have Morrill second, in its to have been in Wil count-still, the alleged M. liam Tilghman. Gallatin, title rested on a to Albert survey plaintiff’s that in tract 12th, 1770, a

dated June large (of which to be followed dated was said controversy part), 10th, for the tract described’ in 1786, survey. February Morris, to Robert conveyed Philadelphia, Gallatin In 1791 á deed to Thomas made trhet who, in Willing, and the survivors and sur Nixon, and John Barclay, John yivor association, in trust for a land called the fee, Nort-h Messrs. Nixon and ac Barclay Laud Company. American action before Mr. trust. Willing’s appeared cepted which the no otherwise than plaintiffs paper court in evidence, thus: offered

“ do I, city Thomas Willing, Philadelphia, hereby Ot. v.

Statement of the case. doth,or concern, declare and make known unto may whom notice that Morris had immediately my receiving Robert Nixon, certain estates of land to conveyed Barclay, John John I, trust for the North American Land myself, Company, did refuse to or to act under the trust so in- positively accept tended to be created, and I have at no time since accepted trust, the said or acted wise as in relation thereto. trusted “ hand, December, this Í9th Witness . my day Willing.”

“Thomas who was the first The death of Mr. Willing, president otherwise, in his States, Bank of one of the United day, and the characters best known Philadelphia-, genuine were sworn to ex one of his' ness of his parte, by signature, was cer witnesses, two other sons signature and'by the examiner of the Court tified Supreme Pennsyl him in due before vania, to have been proved” with the also, instrument had affi form of law. The along been and the examiner’s certificate of ad probate, davits clerk of Cabell mitted to record County, by Virginia, some of the lands where lay. apparently state, title this The on legislature being Virginia, an whose 1835, act, second February, passed by 27th all lands not then in the it was enacted that actual- section owner, himself or his of the tenant by pos which had not been entered for session, and taxation on the of the revenue, of the' commissioners on which the books shall become had not been to the Com taxes paid, “forfeited, monwealth,” after 1st, 1836. July ran section of the act

The 3d thus. title, interest which all hereafter “That right, may virtue in the Commonwealth by vested provisions herein, act next shall be of this preceding section transferred or every person (other vested than persons default the been forfeited for whose same have and their those who arc now in of said lands, or or devisees), heirs for so much them, or thereof as have parcel any part to, or bond claim or claim held or equitable, tille legal just fide from the Commonwealth dated derived grants Dec, v. 1871.J case.

Statement who shall have all taxes assessed 1st, duly 1831, discharged April lands, such him, or them her, and charged against thereon, been assessed and charged taxes that ought his, or their he, she, acquired her, when or they from the time thereto, or title whether equitable.” legal the land Mr. Morris became act, this by Under conveyed forfeited. “An for the relief act

In 1844 the passed legislature who had Dundas Benjamin James apparently Kugler,” Land shareholders of the North American become large and who were then vested sundry conveyances Company, by estate had been vested with whatever Nixon Mr. Nixon, Morris to Messrs. deed of 1795, Willing, this act of Dundas and were au- Barclay. Kugler By the lands forfeited under to redeem thorized álready- 1835; them the title act of redemption by quoted the forfeiture released the terms of act vested benefit of land them company. in its section, act second contained, however, proviso: herein contained shall be

“Provided, however, that nothing or having legal equitable construed any persons deprive from the. of a Com- lands, subsequent to these virtue grant his, title, their or in- monwealth, otherwise, her, right, shall remain the same as terest, but such claimants rights if been this act had never passed.” redeemed the May, Dundas Kugler having, the certificate of the Auditor of now in evidence land, put to show that the taxes had Public Accounts Virginia, and the act of in 1845 the been in paid pursuance had survived his Nixon, heirs who conveyed Barclay, as trustees of in lands to and estate Kugler, Dundas two to Land These conveyed North Americau Company. Morrill, the plaintiff. it will be title; far as to which ob

So to plaintiff’s Mr. the deed served to passed Willing any if him, Nixon, Mr. Morris to had not passed Barclay, Ct v. Morrill. . of the

Statement ease. his of 1806, from him then his what- estate, disclaimer had not been was, ever one. conveyed any title. as to defendant’s been Now Surveys having made different Of parts subsequent which within included their exterior bounda treaty claimants, tracts and these re ries smaller prior being claimants in the certificates served to such granted by doubts arose as of the authority governor surveyors, in such The eases. patents legislature Virginia grant an act 2d, 1788,* June to authorize the passed, accordingly to issue them. act made a recital enact This governor ment thus: been sundry Whereas made different surveys parts Commonwealth, include in the courses general smaller tracts of

thereof, sundry claimants, which, surveyors certificates coun- granted by respective claimants; ties, are to-such reserved chief governor authorized- law to issue magistrate grants upon such certificates of surveys.”

And it enacted: “ That it shall bemay Section lawful for the governor within, to issue with claimsto lands included reservation grants such law the surveys, anything notwithstand- contrary ihg.” statute

With this one Samuel force, M. ob- Hopkins tained a State of survey patent dated Virginia, July 1st, 1796. r

The fo 200,000 acres, and survey was boundaries gave a much area, this statement, including larger closing wit:

“An 227,460 allowance acres is made the calculation of area prior claims included within plat boundary thereof.” followed the boundaries of the in its survey 200,000 acres, concluded as follows

grant : * Virginia, p. 434, Second Revised Code of ch. 58. Armstrong 125 Morrilp.

Dec.

¿Statementof the case. to-be that the is always survey upon “But it understood 227,460acres, is founded exclusive of this grant includes all of which 200,000 acres, above quantity having pref which this to the warrants and rights upon grant lawby erence shall be firm and reserved that the .same founded, liberty is valid, carried into and this grant may grant grants; the confirmation of bar in either law or to equity be no shall and reserved, to the same as before mentioned titles and to hold the said tractor its to have appurtenances; land, with its to the said Samuel M. appurtenances, .parcel as before and his heirs forever.” Hopkins excepted) (except afterwards vested one This title became Hopkins Watson.

Evidence was to show tending given its boundaries entire embraced within exterior Hopkins the defendants and and that tract claimed plaintiffs, and as claimed had the taxes whom they those paid 1834, to the month of thereon, sessments September, year set also In addition the defendants up paper-title had taken actual on adverse They one founded possession. and had kept pos- of the land bond possession fide when the con- 1st, session November premises up continued to the State,.and they forfeited to troversy term that the title was vested them occupy throughout and so also after the forfeiture in the May, .by was revested its tract redemption origi- (when instituted, when the suit was the time April nal owners), forfeiture how- was, Such before the 15th, 1857. for the term of observed, it will be fourteen ever, years, to bar time then law required recovery, Virginia nor did to the date of such possession subsequent revesr before the titure, and of this suit continué long bringing bar a before The term enough recovery. forfeiture consti- tacked term after revestiture together of iburteexi tuted, years, .an advex’se however, maintain the would defence.

The defendants had the reception. below—who objected v., Ct. of the case. Statement evidence what was called the disclaimer of Mr. Will paper supra, had ing (the printed pp. 121-2), excepted : to its admission —maintained As related I. to the of the to patent construction Hopkins. its terms it all That covered lands by 1. within its ex lying boundaries, as came within except such the reserva terior therein; tion contained and'that the burden was on the show himself within the he reservation, which to not had done.

2. That held lands inchoate only by equitable title, carried when into grant Hopkins’s entry survey within made, come the reservation. That lands within the

3. exterior of boundaries the lying which had been to Hopkins grant, patented prior Hopkins’s would, entry, survey, to grant, upon becoming forfeited the State of virtue the act 27th Virginia, February, inure to and in those 1835, vest under the holding Hopkins such owner had with the patent, provided other complied conditions mentioned in said act.

II. As to their second defence, namely, related ground adverse the defendants possession, contended: adverse as

1. That continuity against the owners was not the forfeiture broken vesting 1st, November in continuance till re deemed Dundas and 1845. Kugler

2. That if it was it was broken, restored upon prin remitter, or relation Dundas ciple upon redemption by afid And if neither— Kugler. That it was for the defendants to tack the competent to forfeiture to that subsequent possession prior in order to make out fourteen redemption, years statute bar action.

required by asked the court to defendants charge: accordingly " First. That the reservation patent Hopkins, inchoate, lands the to which were and not of titles lands beer, which had to the date of granted by previous Hopkins’s patent vey sur and entry. “ That the Second. covered lands patent within lying Dec. 1871.] v. Morrill.

Statement of the case. had issued exterior for which boundary patents survey, and became a entry, Hopkins’s survey, previous patent, Gallatin. that issued to grant junior That Watson was the owner of land described Third. if at the time the land controversy Hopkins was, became if he forfeited to the Commonwealth; 27th forfeiture, to the time February, up tenant, the actual of the land himselfor bond possession, fide thereof, under controversy, any part patent Hop kins; and if dis he, Watson, had, forfeiture, at the date of all taxes the Gallatin title land, then that charged inured to and vested Watson, and that could plaintiffs not recover. " Fourth. if evidence, That are from the satisfied, that adversary November, 1st of possession commenced before 1836, and the same continued during the.time forfeiture, well as from May, (the the Sth time to the time of suit, this and "redemption), up institution the time by of before'forfeiture to adding adversary possession the of adversary after makes a possession period redemption, fourteen then or years, they defendants, must find for the such the of defendants as make out the fourteen aforesaid. years “ That the act of Hundas 1844, which authorized and Fifth. to redeem the lands Kugler therein did not so specified, operate toas relieve them the limitations, effect of the-statute which had commenced the for the defendants before running forfeiture, for the time the in forfeited, land was so controversy if the jury believe the their defendants continued possession without the forfeiture and the time of interruption during up and the redemption, defendants the continued possession timo of the the institution of this suit.” The court refused these instructions, and that: charged “The grant within its exterior Hopkins, boun- embracing 227,460 land, daries acres of which is reserved and excepted Claimants, does not them divest of their operate title, unless fail to show themselves to the land entitled under said nor does the reservation; grant pass legal of the lands so it, reserved and where the grantee excepted have same been the previously and appropriated granted by Commonwealth, as it inasmuch appears patentee the gets Ct. [Súpl

Statement .of case. the for, or for which he is he the lands paid chargeable taxes. the, forfeiture

“To secure to the defendants the benefit be the must title, Hop-kips 'satisfied the Gallatin the -in contro covers includes land is the and younger, grant in and under him were that Watson those versy,and claiming land, same good the actual claiming possession faith, as taxes due the duly all the Stato discharged having land, and as well as all taxes sessed said charged against against have been assessed charged should same otherwise, the Watson; date of the deed from from the Hopkinsto, not, title would under act of forfeiture of the Gallatin or him. transferred to Watson to those under claiming under of limi cause, To this statute recovery defeat uninter tations, defendants must held unbroken .of rupted controversy, adverse possession premises ” the institution of this suit. fourteen years prior period nature of the court possession explained by [The to the jury.] him “If those entered claiming Watson ’36, ’35, ’34, 1832,’33, plaintiffs

land claimed to,enter of the owners forfeited failure same became offthe revenue of th'e commissioner same upon books thereon, taxes properly county pay chargeable proper vested Commonwealth same became thó by operation November, 1836, first day on the law the said first of November, 1836,ter day defendants upon minated, the land into re passed same,was until the the Commonwealth transferred to mained 12th 1844; act of the February, Kugler Dundas ,and the said defendants- be acquired by adverse November, cannot connected with the first day fore Dundas acquired defendants'after the title of the Kugler became revested Common-' relief on for their wealth, under the Feb act'passed f2th ” 1844. ruary, defendants to of the court refus The excepted ruling the instructions them asked give ing giving instructions, given. Dec. n.

Argument for the error. Morrill; for the verdict contain The found a verdict jury And no about or Dundas, ing nothing Tilghman. Kugler, made, motion in arrest of nor any objection judgment-being entered on alone, for Morrill finding judgment the verdict. The defendants case here. brought Messrs. B. Miller, H. W. and A. Smith, Evarts, M. S. for in error: plaintiffs 1. There is in the form The code of of the verdict. error West shall find againsx Virginia requires all the fails to The t verdict find parties record. presen at tail as to Dundas, who were co- Tilghman, Kugler, with Morrill.* plaintiffs

2. The to be Mr. writing purporting signed Willing- was made near eleven after Morris’s Mr. deed to him. years has deed; It no It was thus not a or as such seal. operating the estate vested in Neither reconvey previously him. was it that he did not become a testimonyto prove trustee. view then is It had none In it of value. forms and no his renuncia requisites deposition, prove competent of.a tion trust estate’s nor was it suffi prior vesting, cient law to divest him of the estate when it once had become vested. have, The first instructions asked us three reference the same and should be question, legal to considered the act of June, 1788, a a

gether. By person having survey, in its bounds claims including others, might to the bounds of such patent according survey, excepting claims. Such patent such"prior numer patents that act, ous under became known to the country the courts as inclusive The surveys.” patent Hopkins shows form of reservation the executive adopted by That form is common to all inclusive Virginia. grants. excludes from exception its necessarily operation which is older than on which entry survey is founded. exclusive grant

* 23, 24, Chapter p. 520. §§ VOL..xrv. Armstrong

130 Ct. v. Morrill. Argument for the in error. refer entries to claims,” statute,

The words “prior which and constitute and- surveys precede patent, only would defeated titles, or inchoate equitable elder without the title, 'first patent, excep giving legal an is to tion. No such exception necessary protect existing the elder itself.' The words But legal protects patent. received, had thus claims,” used in the statute, prior lauds, use in about distinct Virginia legislation definite to titles.* equitable application before

Hf the dated Gallatin, 1786 patent (nine years is within the of the inclusive not exception, entry grant), same title secures to the then Hopkins’s patent patentee elder that a located on an the land junior patent and well understood It is a title well known would secure. The whole of West Virginia Virginia legislation. under elder junior covered occupants grants, large such have been large sedulously protected against grants have been elder on which unsettled surveys, grants issued. forfeited for non-pay elder have been these grants Where forfeited title casts the the law and non-entry, ment of taxes Watson the land of As Hopkins on the junior-grant. land occupied, forfeited, taxes paid was not in in controversy, the land which is title, Gallatin forfeited him the junior and those Watson holding ured to grantee. in- third second, and that the first, contend

We therefore have been structions given. ought in not The court erred : As asked for. fifth the fourth giving instructions the adversary pos- asked unite instruction fourth with the forfeiture before which occurred session indeed falls short rights This legal after redemption. run there time commences for when defendants, the that it But stops it. suppose law that stops no far as it So for the not follow defaulter. stops it does * 34-8-9, 382-5-7-8, 392-7; Virginia, Wilds pp. Second Revised Code Board, Lewis, 14 400; v. Atkins Grattan, 406; Staats v. Ib. Serpell, Id. 30. v,

Dec. opinion.. Restatement case it is After the run, has valid. the time run is redemption, Is it then also valid. to unite the in them? just By struction asked for us the the time of by plaintiff gained the forfeiture; but that obtained himself gain, by sheltering under the has State, no such merit as to avoid the valid . time which the forfeiture preceded The fifth should also have been If this instruction given. was a or a the suit the from the State, State, purchaser statute is a indi not be a bar. But it suit between might a time one of whom for had lost his estate viduals, by neg lect he is the of the leniency duty; yet, by government, his former estate allowed to be remitted to without preju dice the State. He taxes and redeems. to his pays rights He not under the but under his title, does hold own which he has redeemed. He no consideration to the .pays He the debt for which the held a State. State lien on pays the land. He cannot and to be ought permitted . between him and thrust the State thé defendants is in

5. There also error the instructions actually given the defendants court, the excepted . D. contra. Camden, Mr. G. cpurt. delivered

Mr. CLIFFORD the Justice of the opinion title and the Absolute are claimed possession right the to the tract of land in controversy, the same in actual the four possession being defendants he an declaration, named action of ejectment brought . them recover of the tract. He possession, alleges against count of the declaration first original day named he was in fee tract; therein of the possessed simple of October that on defendants en- -eighth following and that tered into withhold premises, they unlawfully Quite tract. described unlike’ that, from him the second of the tract was in possession count primary alleges and one Dundas and that the Benjamin one James Kugler, withhold the defendants from those unlawfully was served Process defendants appeared parties.- (cid:127) Ct.

(cid:127) opinion. of the case Restatement sustained the declaration, and demurred.to court count it as demurrer as to the second but overruled decla amend was amended first. Leave to granted, and<an. first which the counts, ration was three filed, containing two is in the name persons other plaintiff' All second declaration. named count original second but the three sue in that count as joint plaintiffs, count with the first in all count corresponds respects renders it declaration, which unnecessary describe original are third, that the other two alleged persons except say tract, have been' the possessors primary names as' their to recover the claim made Both as the claim for parties acquiesced- well damages. to the first the court demurrer the decision of overruling dec it as to the second of count original sustaining and the defendants to the merits that laration, pleaded they of the as in. were not premises alleged withholding guilty was tendered filed leave court. the new counts Issue leave,to trial, but the before and obtained plaintiffs, joined, that one count, in which it William a fourth filé alleged the the tract, and was the possessor M. primary Tilghman with, count, defendants is that the unlawfully in that charge, same described hold him the actual from went to trial and parties tract land. Subsequently pf as described in the' was for the first verdict plaintiff, declaration, and also in the second count the original declaration. count of the amended found that the Lot M. the verdict plaintiff, By an in fee Morrill, had estate simple premises, except and assessed described, small therein also as to a parcel ren for the duly plaintiff. nominal Judgment damages death of the defendants, the first three against dered and the sur trial, before the other been suggested having and the record into writ of error removed out a vivors sued this court. their plaintiffs gave issue on part

To sustain the made surveyor of a survey A evidence: copy (1.) Gallatin, for Albert assignee county proper Dec. 1871,] v, Morrill, in the Restatement the case .opinion. land, fifteen hundred acres of Laeoste, of part

of Stephen acres, 27th, dated warrant of five thousand June laud-office of the as therein 1770, Copy described. (2.) bounded the tract 10th, 1786, for Gallatin, dated February Albert deed Also copy-of land described (3.) survey. Mor Gallatin, 7th, to Robert 1794, dated May from Albert Robert same Morris ris, (4.) land. conveying Deed Bar-' and' to Thomas John John Nixon, others Willing, to them 5th, dated March premises clay, conveying heirs of the survivor and survivors of them, as more set in the deed trust, forth survivor fully exhibited auditor in the record. Certificate of William F. Taylor, (5.) Dundas the State, James publicaeeounts showing aforesaid, trustees aud eighth Benjamin Kugler, redeemed the. lands in question by pay of May, manner sum into the treasury, ment required certain certificate,-and as more set forth fully form exhibited-in the also introduced others (6.) Disclaimer of Thomas of exceptions. Willing, bill that he 1806, in which states did 19th, December dated .he trust, or act under the refuse accept positively n hehas not at time since the said Or acted trust, accepted any deed wise as Also trustee, that deed. (7.) 1845, from and others to 17th, dated June- John M. Barclay Dundas to them all James Benjamin conveying Kugler, interest of the trustees who did ac title,,and two right, created tlie trust deed. Deed preceding jept (8.) Dundas 1st, 1854, from James dated December Benja Land trustees of the North American min Company, Kugler, in whose favor rendered. judgment was-also introduced showing, Evidence by plaintiffs November, on 1st land in controversy, day of the second virtue forfeited to the State became by of Feb on the 27th of the statute of State passed sectioh Court or Court, 1835; as construed Supreme ruary, a case became in such Forfeiture State.* of Appeals, * Grattan, 12; Acts, Board, 10 1835, p. Staats v. Sessions Ct v. Morrill.

Restatement of the ease in the opinion. absolute and the failure to enter complete by pay taxes land and the in the manner therein damages, and no or or in prescribed, inquisition judicial proceeding or kind was quest to consummate finding any required such a forfeiture.* Owners or tract of proprietors any land west of the Mountains, lying Alleghany granted by.the before the State first were day April, required by the act of the to enter 183S, or twenty-seventh February, cause to be on or before the entered, first of the day July on the books of Commissioners of the year, succeeding Revenue for the such tract or wherein'any county parcel land all such lands as he or lie, claimed, or owned may they title derived, or from the .through mediately immediately, aud have the same with all taxes dam charged in arrear or thereon. properly They ages chargeable also all such taxes and required pay satisfy damages not have and exonerated relinquished would been the second section of the act of the tenth March, 1832, had been for their returned to the they delinquency prior of that was that if failed act, the provision passage to' with those all such lands or comply par requirements in the actual cels thereof not then of such owner or himself or his tenant be shall proprietor, by possession, come to the after the first Commonwealth day July, forfeited hundred as hereinafter thirty-six, except only eighteen' excepted.” is also made the third

Provision section of the .act title, and interest vested the State right, pre shall, section of the act be transferred and ceding absolutely vested in or other than those any every person persons, whose default the same have forfeited, been their heirs, devisees, now in or of said or lands, actual possession same, for so much thereof as such part parcel per son or title or claim to, persons just legal equitable, or derived from or claimed, held, bond under any grant fide date State of time previous bearing period * 405; Grattan, Lessee v. Serpell, Branscum, Wild’s Hale v. Ib. 418. Armstrong Dec. v. Morrill. of the ease the opinion.

Restatement who shall in the to the second section, preamble mentioned all taxes assessed and duly against have discharged charged that lands,, all taxes him or them such ought upon he or thereon from the time have assessed been charged thereto, whether or equitable. Ap they acquired legal section, however, proviso nothing pended as to the shall be so construed therein contained impair have obtained title of or who or persons any person right for same land from the the regularly State grants the taxes thereon. paid proprietors four other

Section the things, provides, among lands, land such their or of the attorney agent, of of taxes for the for years returned delinquent non-payment hundred and thirty-two year, succeeding eighteen said for each the lands upon taxes may charges pay where to the sheriff of the lands lie, those the county years be, bis the or same, therefor and deliver on take receipt November, first clerk 1836, fore the day Court of said county.* County in the doubt lands described Rob deed

Beyond and others became ert Morris plaintiff’, grantors the. of the failure enter the reason forfeited State of the Revenue, on the books of Commissioners same to the act of the twelfth of recited preamble February, 1844, in which it is also stated that the' of the plain grantors “ the General tiff’ re Assembly permission petitioned said all the taxes upon payment'of deem lands due the first section of that act By damages thereon.”† “ to redeem empowered any part whole lands same aforesaid by having entered of the Revenue of the Commissioners books county and assessed the laud with all taxes due lie, wherein may be ascertained in same manner that the thereon, to back on omitted lands are now ascertained the several ta^es commissioners of and forfeited lands, delinquent paying before the first into treasury day * Acts, Acts, 1843-4, Sessions pp. p. 108. Sessions † Ct. ease in opinion.

Restatement so June” amount taxes succeeding year, with six centum aunurn per per damages together assessed, thereon.” with those conditions, They complied “ second section of the act that provided, upon payment taxes and title, aforesaid, all damages the right, interest which have vested in the and direc may president tors of the such Fund, the said forfeiture, Literary by or afore of said lands as redeemed as part pai;ts bemay said, shall be and said the same are unto the hereby released James Dundas and . for the use . . Benjamin Kugler, benefit'of the the said Land shareholders of North American that, however, Annexed to is a Company:” proviso herein be contained shall construed any nothing deprive or a or title to of legal person persons equitable having virtue these lands of a the. State subsequent grant otherwise, title, or his or their or but interest, right, of such claimants shall remain the same as if this act rights had never been passed. title evidences of were also introduced

Documentary The defendants; as certificate of follows: plat (1.) made for Samuel M. for two hundred survey thou Hopkins acres county Kanawha, sand land dated the tenth forth, 1795, December, more set in the record, fully “ which contains certificate:. for following Surveyed M. Samuel two hundred thousand acres of land Hopkins pf Kanawha, virtue of two land-office county treasury warrants, each one acres;” for hundred thousand arid then boundaries, at the close follows of which is the following 'statement: An allowance two hundred and twenty-seven four thousand hundred and acres is made in sixty the calcu lation the area of this for claims contained in plat thereof.” boundary dated 1st, (the) patent, July (2.) 1796, issued to Samuel M. two survey Hopkins hundred thousand acres of the State. governor Founded, as is, patent upon certificate of survey, the same contains boundaries concludes as and. follows: it is “But to be understood that always upon survey Dec. 1871'.] Morrirr.

Opinion the court. two hundred this grant' founded, which includes ex acres,” hundred thousand four sixty twenty-seven acres, hundred thousand above two clusive quantity warrants which Jaw to the '“all of preference by having is re is founded,, grant liberty rights be valid, served that the same shall firm and and may no bar into and this shall be carried grants,” grant grant confirmation law,or in either equity as before and reserved, titles to mentioned same, ' Deed Wolcott from Oliver the appurtenances. (3.) Wat§oh, 22d, convey dated to James T. June othei’s lands embraced other him, things, among ing M., Evidence to Samuel Hopkins. tending (4.) patent embraced M. Samuel Hopkins show tract boundaries the entire claimed by its exterior within in certain which were also as shown by plats the plaintiff, the evidence was also introduced by Parol troduced. (5.) that James T. Watson, prove defendants tending claim the deed the to Samuel M. under Hopkins ing the himself, took actual bond possession, year fide well coter the lands in as as of the of controversy, intro Gallatin, minous surveys Savary-and previously as and that as the evidence, he, early duced month all taxes rendered 1834, discharged damages September, hundred thousaud acres laud, him upon said.two against to have been that him against up and all charged ought same became evidence 1840, as the due. Other the (6.) year the defendants, the title introduced also deraigning was them or one of which them, last-named the grantee'to as the notice, it is not con subject it is important .not troversy. has to the form respect judgment

First objection the it does not find for verdict, because the or.against declaration, the different counts mentioned iii parties is that the is without objection court opinion, but the the first as the conforms to count in the merit, orig- finding to the second count the amended declaration and inal Ct Armstrona Opinion of the court.

declaration. motion in made, No arrest of was judgment and as no such was the court below, raised in question as the is two of the counts and fully justified by finding evidence is overruled. reported, objection the order of events at .trial, next

Adopting ques tion arises from the of the defendants to the exception ruling in evidence the admitting court paper-writing called disclaimer of Thomas which he states, Willing, in under date of the nineteenth of to the effect December,-1806, that he refused to trust intended to positively accept created the before-mentioned deed John Nixon, John himself, and that he did the same Barclay, accept netfe.r or in as trustee’under that act instrument. Before anywise introduced the deed to plaintiff offering paper it relates, proved having signature offered show signer, paper tending that the the trust accepted never signer described deed. Two made to objections admissibility it was That insufficient as a disclaimer as it paper: (1.) was but the seal, not offered as evi paper merely was dence to show that never accepted trust, signer as an a vested instrument which is all releasing right, need to that said Thai objection. reply (2.) be. as evidence that never not admissible he accepted was not under trust, because it oath. to that Appended are the of three affidavits witnesses paper proving Annexed to that is the signature the'signer genuine. anof examiner of the Court of the State Supreme certificate March, dated the third of 1844, that the Pennsylvania, of the was before him signature signer paper proved law, in due form also certificate the clerk of date Court, Cabell County Virginia, twenty- ninth that March, instrument, together the certificates was to- admitted record. proof, are show

Authorities that the mere hardly necessary deed, like oi a trust the one question, without' making, or is not any acceptance, express implied, trustee, ' 139 Dec. v. court. Opinion men the land the title to trustee vest sufficient to admissible such is deed, and that parol proof tioned theOn never that the trust was accepted. a case to show trust is that if the accepted, clear hand, it is other equally a. release of to show moment, but for parol proof though as "admitted.* Offered the trust estate cannot be the title to release of & vested as the was, right, paper-writing that as evidence signer tending prove but merely is no doubt deed, never the trust created accepted is as it admitted, was entertained that the evidence properly law that depends well-settled every conveyance with the title the act of vesting parties imperfect either same, express to the out assent of the parties the trust pro the trustees Two of accepted implied.† it, but it does not ceeded to execute appear signer either act, with them any of the certificate ever joined the estate. Obviously weight managing disposing it was for the nor does evidence appear jury, as introduced, ivas not other to the same point testimony as was in the bill of so much is reported exceptions only as was, Admitted of law. to raise the necessary question ac trust was not as a verbal act to show tending is entertained that the correct. no doubt ruling cepted, re the defendants to the also taken by Exceptions and also fusal of to instruct the the court requested, to the merits of con instructions respect given whether the doubts are entertained troversy. Very great defendants was such that the evidence introduced the first, second, warranted in court would been giving instructions as but or third requested, judgment clear that not be as it is court will placed upon ground, if were in all suf- correct, instructions respects given, * Pett, ; 150; Williams, Trusts v. 3 P. 251 (4th ed.), oa Robinson Lewin 16 Meeson & 517; Harris, Welsby, Blake, 2 Doyle v. Schoale & Le Doe v. 239; Trusts, Stacey Elph, Mylne Keene, 195; v. Bull. froy, & Tiff. & 532. Wheeler, Ventris, Smith † ' Cfc. v.

Opinion of the court. the ficient and as verdict was dispose controversy, the the for material only remaining inquiry whether law was the in those correctly jury given instructions.

Two hundred and thousand four hundred and twenty-seven acres land were embraced the sixty M. Samuel patent which was reserved and Hopkins claimants, excepted prior court, its fourth instruction, told the that the jury not did to divest such claimants their patent operate prior title unless failed show themselves entitled they land under said reservation; that patent did title to the of said lands, so reserved pass any patentee legal it, where'the same had been excepted by previously ap State, inasmuch as propriated granted appeared for', that all lairds for which patentee got paid he taxes. What defendants charged claimed was that the title under the Gallatin was forfeited patent in the Watson claim under the act of the merged twenty- seventh of but the were instructed February, jury could the defendants not derive benefit from the sup forfeiture unless were satisfied that.the jury posed which was the covered and in Hopkins, junior patent, the land and that cluded Watson controversy, and those him were the actual of the said claiming possession land, same faith, claiming good having discharged taxes due to the assessed and duly charged against the date of the same, from deed from to Watson. Hopkins statute, the'merits defendants Apart up set limitations, insisted action could not be because, maintained had held alleged, they unbro- ken uninterrupted premises for a of fourteen to the insti- years controversy period suit.” Pursuaut to that claim the tution jury in the first to sustain instructed, place, defendants, “ must have held of defence, premises or other bultivation, residence, improvement, open, notorious, of, acts fourteen habitual before ownership, years” AiiMSTRONb v. 'Morrill. Dec.

Opinion of the court. but if the find that' action; the commencement there and was the owner resided defendant, the Armstrong, in the a in the of immediate vicinity of lot Ripley, town of the land woodland, he owned tract of part thereof own, he, it as his for which land; controversy, claiming his cut and hauled mentioned, necessary time the openly and also timber for the the fuel, necessary of construction supply and also inclosed cer lot, on the various houses of such acts and use-are land, of the equivalent portions tain time such acts and use were from the possession adversary commenced. land, that the on the of

But the showed first day evidence the as matter State, became forfeited to November, 1836, the same the the failure of the owners to enter law, upon r Revenue of the books of the the prope Commissioners thereon, the taxes county, the,court pay properly chargeable if that the subject jury instructed that the so found from the evidence, passed possession until title was transferred into and remained the State the defence of the under statute to the plaintiff, grantors the adverse sustained, not was possession limitations November, before the first the defendants day acquired adverse ac with the cannot be connected of the them after the quired by grantors became under the before-mentioned State, vested with the title of for their relief. act Assembly passed are errors instructions: Two principal alleged (1.) when land, did instruct the That the court not jury the books of the Comm forfeited it became non-entry and for of taxes Revenue, issioners non-payment became was transferred to and vested and damages, the third section of the owners of Hopkins patent, That the court the forfeiture. erred in the act declaring (2.) ceased that the statute limitations instruction to the aud run when the land became forfeited to before forfeiture took period before not be added to elapsed could which period place time the commenced, the suit was subsequent Ct- v. Morrill. Opinion court. plaintiff’s

under the act of Assembly conveyed make the of fourteen to bar grantors, required years term the title. act

Such a.construction as the one first Assembly could not have been claimed, unless it can certainly adopted held embraced in'the proviso Hopkins not afford to the owners of lands in any protection does cluded in that where been had survey, patents previously which is the construction assumed defend issued, ants. contend that the excludes from the proviso They only lands within its exterior boun operation grant the titles to which were lands daries, inchoate, not. had been to the date of that patents previous granted to; which is construction be sus survey entry,” tained if consistent with the another can employed language be better to calculated promote adopted justice carry into effect the plain'intent lav^giver.

On the other hand contends that reserva- from the all lands tion excludes held operation patent at the date of the within the exterior survey, them boun- by whether the title inchoate the-patent, or dary only which had been seems to be the more grants, perfected and not construction, reasonable inconsistent with the lan- employed. guage of the reservation it is terms stated that the sur

By two hundred includes thousand four vey twenty-seven hundred and acres to the sixty beyond quantity granted to all which is reserved that patentee, respect liberty valid, the same shall be carried into may grant firm or which means that all shall be and valid, whe grants,” firm ther hold or but that complete titles, such incomplete are held as titles be carried parts by incomplete into may that founded on patent that grant, shall be survey no law either to the bar, confirmation equity, titles to the reserved included lands within exterior bounds survey. had been made in different

Surveys of the State, parts to the included subsequent treaty peace, smaller ' : Deo.

Opinion of the court. within their boundaries, tracts claimants .exterior prior in the certificates were reserved to-such claimants and which as to the arose authority Doubts granted by surveyors. eases, in such and to re patents grant governor 2d, the General June 1778,, move those doubts Assembly, lawful for the enacted that it shall and bemay governor claims lands included in with reservation of issue grants law to notwith-. contrary such any surveys, anything that law the to the authority passage standing.* Drior doubtful, was at least even if the such power to issue grants in that the never and it is cltear existed at all, Assembly title, should cover such any prior tended any grant within the exterior boun incomplete, completé whether daries of proposition survey.† Supported it is State court without decisions adopted repeated rule would hesitation, as other very injust great work Where the exterior boundaries of a survey ice.‡ which a is fouuded includes that law tracts be patent ,in claimants, cannot such a patentee prior longing without that the case recover tract ejectment showing not within the claimed the defendant is bounds of the b}' claims, is a excluded which reserved direct-authority lands in case like did not pass present patentee.§ case Nichols al. v. Covey, n also is the et Even more decisive in which it is determined that where is issued in June, of the act-of the second of in pursuance claim, cludes its courses a does not pass general of the State to the lands covered the-patentee the the title claim. On of the such prior contrary, patentee in to such a tract is to the respect only subject a if that title is and claimant, the but only prior entry a return becomes vacated procure survey by neglect the a warrant on the as in other same, one plat, any may,lay lands. the cases of vacant same unappropriated Exactly 483; * Ib. Virginia, 2 434. 3 Revised Code † 65. Ib. Munford, al., 38. et al. v. et 6 Hopkins Ward ‡ Cases, Owens, Littell’s Select 281. Madison v. 6 § Randolph, 4 5. n 86 Ct. 144 v. of the court. Opinion laid court in the case rule is down this et Scott v. al. et in the was al.* which the Chief opinion given Ratliffe He said such have been valid, Justice. held patents always excluded, land not but to so far as no pass legal respects as the lands are in land title to the grant, excepted and not a in habendumof doubt case patent, rule there laid dowii is the correct rule entertained that the subject.† 2. Sufficient evidence was the defendants introduced by to show that or some of them took adversary possession they of the to the forfeiture of the controversy prior premises continued to State, same occupy title was same vested period throughout and after the tract to the State conveyed grantors' the time when the suit was but instituted, plaintiff before the forfeiture it is conceded that such adversary possession not for the of fourteen time w years, period did law nor such adver to bar then required by recovery, date to the conveyance sary possession subsequent to the before the ser State grantors to bar a vice of continue process, long enough recovery. would maintain'the course defence, Both combined to run the title if the statute continued period during the instruction forfeiture, was vested the State by must to the was erroneous judgment given reversed. Adverse was the defence the case v. where arose in question Stoughton Baker,‡ respect of the defendant to an ancient was right grant to an and it was contended subject limitation, implied he had been so that the State possessed premises long had no interfere form of Pos any remedy. right to legal session period enjoyment very long uninterrupted held that the limita but court case, proved th^ tion could not be inattention or extinguished by neglect * Peters, 6 Boardman, 212; Quarrier, Virginia, Hardman v. Kenna 3 West † Leigh, 382. Massachusetts, 526. ‡ n Armstrong n Deb. tv 145

Opinion tbe court. it, the owner for no is compelling laches comply be it no runs time imputed against government so as to which is no more nor less bar public mights, than another form of words for rule the ancient expressing does, that time not run law, common against State.* show that the statute of limitations Argument to ceased run, when the forfeiture attached and the title became

vested in the State can be the rule as that hardly necessary, rup time does not tbe State -hasbeen settled for cen against , turies, and is’ all courts supported by civilized coun so, that-is still it is Suppose insisted-that tw-o tries.† that is, before,the periods, adverse period forfeiture and the period subsequent conveyance by the State or those under whom he claims, added be as considered one entire may together period, for .purpose defence, and it is maintaining clear correct,the instruction proposition was erro is given if But, cannot, proposition admitted, as neous. it is well-settled law that the possession,.in order if bar may be continuous and must recovery, uninterrupted well notorious, actual, asopen, exclusive, Such a adverse.‡ it is “if conceded, possession, ption without continued interru thé whole period which is prescribed statute for the enforcement of the right of a evidence entry, fee,” and bars the right-of recovery. Independently of positive law such a statute presumption affords all the claimants to the land acquiesce evi-; claim so dencéd and or that enforced, forbear for some substan tial-reason to controvert the claim of the or to possessor disturb him in the enjoyment Secret premises. pos session will do, as are publicity notoriety necessary as evidence of notice and to those an put claiming * Hoar, United States Mason, v. 2 312; Lindsey Miller, et 6 Peters, al. 673. Angell on Limitations, 5th ed † 28. Cook v. Babcock, Cushing, ‡

YOL. XIV. -v, Morrill. Cfc.

n Opinion String, Davis, Bradley, JJ., dissenting. sufficient, is not interest Mere occupation upon inquiry.* as be seizin adverse, possession but the must possession with the that the are coextensive right, supposed an is thereof till ousted continues possession party another under a of actual claim right.† possession is one of the essential of also Continuity requi possession an as sites such adverse will be of- possession to constitute of a under statute limitations. party Whenever efficacy seizin the true is restored, of owner quits possession another a new constitutes a entry by subsequent wrongful settled that if the and it well disseizin, continuity is equally before the expiration broken period an limitations, the statute of of time entry prescribed by of all time within that efficacy prior possession, destroys a adverse statute, a under the new posses so that to gain taken sion the time limited must be for that purpose.‡ the case of Hall one, v. Gittings, Beyond question the same involved cited, cases question presented just was and the decision court, in the before- the case within the period necessary forfeiture State give effect break the conti did have the effect to the statute operation nuity possession, prevented § the statute bar. the court is of the there Viewed in any light opinion is no the record. error

Judgment affirmed. concurred Justices STRONG, with whom Mr. Justice BRADLEY, dissenting. DAVIS brethren take of one my In the view which majority I am unable to concur. this case, branch of claimed title to court below the land The plaintiff * 402; Peters, Wood, Huntington, Metcalf, 5 Blood v. 1 v. Bradstreet Peters, Burnet, 53. 11 ; Ewing v 528 Peters, 377; Courtney, 354; v. Limitations, Clarke 5 McIver Angell † Smith, 29; 9 288. Wheaton, v. Id. Kirk 2 Ragan, v. Johnson, Kelly, ; Ringgold Malott, v. Carter, 2 143 Harris v. & Brinsfitdd ‡ Gittings, 2 I d. 112. v. 6; Hall 31 Grattan, Burnsides, 1 190. Taylor § Dec. v. Mórrill. Davis,

Opinion Sjrong, Bradley, JJ., dissenting. under State of controversy Virginia, on the to Albert Gallatin 10th granted day February, ever, It does not was apppar taken but on the 1st of November, patent, 1836, the lands were forfeited to the State for failure the owners thereof to make commissioners’ entry books, for taxation. On 12th however, an February, act' for the relief of Dundas and passed legislature had who bécome of the Gallatin Kugler, grantees right, allovyed lands, to redeem the on the of all taxes and due thereon, and on the payment damages 8th was made. The day May, redemption has no other'title. plaintiff’ claim, as The defendants mesne con- grantees by sundry T. James Watson from Samuel veyances M. through Hop- kins, patent July also obtained a who dated 1st, 1796.

I that neither this nor patent Hopkins, agree any legis- it, lation of the State sufficient de- presents any affecting fence, to the claim of under' the earlier plaintiff’ Gallatin., to Albert But the defendants set in the court up below defence. It was that another they protected by the statute of limitations. submitted evidence They tending or those whom to prove claim, took they, through they actual and lands 1827, and adversary possession had been continued that such until the institution possession this, suit. court they presented Relying two and points requested that following (among others), as instructions to the they might given jury: “ If the are satisfied from the evidence Fourth. that ad jury before the 1st of November, commenced 1836, versary possession time the same continued and for possession during well- from the 8th of feiture, 1845, as as time- of May, re suit, to the time the institution of this and demption, up time of before adversary possession adding forfeiture after makes of four redemption period adversary possession defendants, find for the or such then must teen years, out the fourteen as aforesai as make d. years defendants v, [Sup. Ct . , JJ., dissenting. D.ivis, Bradley Strong,, and Opinion of Dundas 1844, authorized That the act Fifth. not therein did So operate to redeemthe lands specified, Kugler limitation, relieve them from the effect of the statute as to for the defendants before'the had commencedrunning which forfeiture, if defendants continued their believed the the jury the'forfeiture, without up during possession .interruption defendants continued the the time of redemption, of this suit.” of the institution time up possession affirm, on the and, Both the court refused these points of November, that on the 1st contrary, charged of the defendants terminated passed possession the same was until the Commonwealth into remained the act of February to Dundas transferred Kugler adverse possession acquired by and that 12th, con could not be 1st, 1836, defendants before November defend nected with the acquired possession with the title revested ants after Dundas and became Kugler ivas clear think,- I error. Herein, Commonwealth. forfeiture, the adversary posses had there been no Plainly, fourteen defendants, continuously during sion of the up kept would, entry them right against years, protected their disturb actual did not The forfeiture plaintiff. claim of exclusive their nor possession, which, (What is meant themselves, by adversary. right the forfeiture between their I agree This the State. no against right them redemption gave nor be adversary, is not because their possession law to the was transferred by cause the actual possession is unavail but because Commonwealth, adversary possession to it not subject being to bar any rights ing defend The unless named. limitation, expressly statutes of are,not tbeir adversary against here possession asserting ants them and claim is between one controversy the State. The at one time for which, title, though under the Gallatin ing claim redeemed. was allowed to be They the State, to feited their on account of possession the State nothing against it was 8th, 1845, 1836, to 1st, though May from November Dec. 14P v. Morrill. Bradley, JJ., dissenting. Strong, Davis, Opinion either abandonment or and uninterrupted, adversary State plaintiff. entry not that But is plain why possession operative against I As between him and the tiff? think it is. defendants, but an or an sufficient to action was entry brought nothing character of their or break its con possession change to not, It is discuss this. It is however, necessary tinuity. this ease that the defendants sufficient for held actual and continuous the lauds until 1857, possession when this suit was was brought; possession always he never took plaintiff; adversary any steps he disturb and that has had more than it, fourteen years he within which have asserted his might right.

Concede was the plaintiff’s right entry suspended still it revived when the forfeiture, lands re if defendants’ deemed, arid the adverse to possession his fourteen and continuous in which he years right, during or asserted his have entered I am action, un might able, right he is not perceive why barred. an owner’s fact that has been right sus entry the statute has after pended, running commenced against him, can of no he has had the importance, statutory if within which to his action period disseizor bring against so, adverse If this is uot then war not possession. might statute, -but render of only no suspend running effect all before held the war commenced.' This has never been is asserted. It ad uninterrupted, verse alone creates the bar. It essential to it that the enter or suit should right bring have suffered no interruption. reason for the statute, which-would

Every applying there,been existed had no forfeiture, and no consequently suspension plaintiff’s enter, exists full right force now. Statutes of limitation are dictated mainly by one, two that it is considerations: to discour public policy claims; stale other, that is not to be age presumed that one would it for a having right delay asserting long in full view of period interference another’s-wrongful Armstrong Ofc Morrill. v. JJ., Davis, Bradley, dissenting.

Opinion Strong, of at Vir- Hence, it. was fixed fourteen period years, and West within which a out pos- ginia party Virginia, session his one action may bring ejectment against would that the adversely. holding Assuming have found the facts as stated in the points proposed, has had that entire period, public policy, well as the from his which laches, presumptions arising gave birth his statute, to the all their case. potency, apply, And the a statute is not a bar to the assertion only right one in Adverse after entry upon expiration a title to the The period fixed, but disseizor. gives law casts title him, assures to him the upon privilege it, either or For the ac- asserting defensively. aggressively this defendants have done all quisition right 'law a entered under claim of exclusive contemplates. They is, held that adversarily, they right, adversary pos- suit was session until this That the continuously brought. their title was forfeited was no Gallatin occupancy during due to the fault of theirs. It was wrongful neglect whom he claims, those under to enter the lands plaintiff, and to books, the commissioners’ taxes. Can pay forfeiture, caused he now make use of’a his own neglect, which, to obtain or would have confessedly, preserve rights inwas, his ? Yet no existence but for substance, neglect His laches, instruction jury. given resulting is same-effect as an would have forfeiture, entry Thus he is had, as action allowed to secure an brought. his own default. Thus he allowed to advantage through make use unlawful nonfeasance to .break the con- his own (cid:127) hostile I cannot of the defendants’ assent possession. tinuity yiew of the law. such Commonwealth, after forfeiture of the Galla

Had other the land to some I in title, grantee, t agree granted not be affected such would by any pos grantee held them before the forfeiture, defendants session of the But such was fourteen less than years. duration title were allowed to re of the Gallatin The holders case. transaction became deem. nature Dec. JJ., Strong, Davis, Bradley, dissenting.

Opinion the title is seen in reinvested with the act Febru- plainly 12th, 1844, for their relief. Its recited ary. passed preamble that the had become failure lands forfeited reason of enter the same on the Commissioners books taxation, Revenue for Dundas and the trus- Kugler, tees of the American Land use North for whose Company, held, title had been had for petitioned permission “ redeem” said on lands, caxes to- assessed, payment with six centum annum thereon. gether per per damages The first section authorized them to redeem” on those before terms, June 1845. The section 1st, second “ released” unto them, for the benefit of the shareholders of all the had title, interest which been company, right, forfeited taxes of said The payment and.damages. third section authorized a the lands for the judgment against amount of costs for incurred, and reasonable compensation commissioner of lands forfeited delinquent reason of sale; his redeemed having lands prepared section directed such com- fourth proceedings missioners 1st, until after It June suspended thus was not the appears acquisition redemption a new It was the case of a title. common of waiver for- feiture. Dundas after the held Kugler, redemption, tjie their old Gallatin and it was this right, patent, right which the in evidence and asserted in the plaintiff gave action. No new was issued to Dundas present act of 1844 contains no words of Kugler. grant avowed and its was to them, them in the same purpose place as holders .the trustees of the position, company, which before the forfeiture. they occupied therefore,

I am, Court Circuit erred opinion to affirm the defendants’ fifth fourth and refusing points, and also in the instruction re. given effect of For statute of limitations. specting I reason think should be reversed, judgment de should be venire novo awarded.

Case Details

Case Name: Armstrong v. Morrill

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jan 22, 1872

Citation: 81 U.S. 120

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS