페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

1818. Craig w. Radford.

the title which the warrant confers upon him, on account of the subsequent neglect of that officer. I

the omission of the surveyor to “see the land plainly bounded by natural bounds or marked trees,” which the law imposes upon him as a duty, cannot aft

fect the title of the warrant holder, it would fol

low that his omission to run all the lines of the survey on the ground, which the law does not in express

terms require him to do, ought not to produce that

effect. If the surveyor, by running some of the lines,

and from adjoining surveys, natural boundaries, or his

personal knowledge of the ground, is enabled to pro-
tract the remaining lines, so as to close the survey,
no subsequent locator can impeach the title founded
upon such survey, upon the ground that all the lines
were not run and marked. The legislature may un-
doubtedly declare all such surveys to be void; but no
statute to this effect was in force in Virginia at the time
when this survey was made.
3. The third objection made to this decree appears to

be substantially removed by the opinion of this court

on the third point, in the case above referred to. It was there decided that the survey, though in fact made by

the deputy surveyor, was in point of law to be consid

ered as made by the principal, and, consequently, that
his signature to the plat and certificate was a sufficient
authentication of the survey to entitle the person claim-
ing under it to a grant. -
As to the distinction taken at the bar between that

case and this, upon the ground that in this the sur

vey was merely experimental, and was not intended to be made in execution of the warrant, there is cer

tainly nothing in it. It is by acts that the intention

of men, in the absence of positive declarations, can
best be discovered. The survey made by Taylor was
adopted by the principal surveyor, as one actually done
in execution of the warrant to Sutherland, and it
would be too much for this or any other court, to
presume that a contrary intention prevailed in the
mind either - of the principal or deputy surveyor,
and on that supposition to pronounce the survey in-
valid. - -
The last objection made to this decree is, that as a
British subject, Wm. Sutherland could not take a legal
title to this land under the state of Virginia, and,
consequently, that the grant to him in 1788 was void,
and was not protected" by the treaty of 1794, between
the United States and Great Britain.
The decision of this court in the case of Fairfax's
devisee v. Hunter's lessee, (7 Crunch, 603) affords a
full answer to this objection. In that case the will
of Lord Fairfax took effect in the year 1781,
during the war, and Denny Martin, the devisee, under
that will, was found to be a native born British sub-
ject, who had never become a citizen of any of
the United States, but had always resided in Eng-
land. - -
It was ruled in that case, 1st. That although the
devisee was an an alien enemy at the time of the testa.
tor's death, yet he took an estate in fee under the will,
which could not, on the ground of alienage, be deves-
ted but by inquest of office, or by some legislative. act

equivalent thereto. 2d. That, the defeasible title

thus vested in the alien devisee was complete

[ocr errors][merged small]

1818. Ross

w Triplet.

ly protected and confirmed by the ninth article of the
treaty of 1794. -
These principles are decisive of the objection now
under consideration. In that case, as in this, the le.
gal title vested in the alien by purchase during the
war, and was not devested by any act of Virginia, pri-
or to the treaty of 1794, which rendered their estates
absolute and indefeasible. ,

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

This court has no jurisdiction of causes trought before it, upon certificate of a division of opinions of the judges of the circuit court for the District of Columbia. The appellate jurisdiction of this court, in rospect to that court, only extends to the final judgments and decrees of the latter.

This cause was brought from the circuit court for the district of Columbia, upon a certificate that the opinions of the judges of that court were divided upon a question which occurred in the cause, under the judiciary act of 1802, ch. 291, (xxxi.) s. 6. It was submitted without argument.

It was ordered to be certified to the circuit court

March 12th, for the district of Columbia, as follows:

CERT1F1c ATE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the circuit court for the District of Columbia, and on the question certified, on which the judges of that court. were divided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof this court is of opinion, that its jurisdiction extends only to the final judgments and decrees of the said circuit court. It is, therefore, considered by this court, that the cause be remanded to the said circuit court for the District of Columbia, to be proceeded in according to law.

(inst Ance court.)

The NEPTUNE, Harrod et al. claimants.

Libel under the 27th section of the registry act of 1792,ch. 146.1) for tho fraudulent use by a vessel of a certificate of registry, to the benefit of which she was not entitled. Wessel forfeited.

The provisions of the 27th section apply as well to vessels which have not been previowsly registered, as to those to which registers have been previously granted.

APPEAL from the district court of Louisiana.

1818.

The Neptune.

This cause was argued by Mr. D. B. Ogden, and Feb.26th

Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, for the appellants and claimants,

and by the Attorney General, for the United States. Vol. III. 77

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Justice DuvAll delivered the opinion of the court. The ship Neptune, owned and commanded by Captain Myrick, arrived at New Orleans, from London on the 20th of October, 1815. On the next day he appeared, in company with George M. Ogden, one of the appellants, at the custom house, and reported the Neptune as a registered vessel of the United States, belonging to Wilmington North Carolina, where, he alleged, and it was so stated in the manifest, she was registered. . He declared, at the same time, that he had lost the register in ascending the Mississippi, and required a new one to be issued in lieu of it. Captain Myrick had made a protest before a notary public to that effect, and offered to take the oath required by the 13th, section of the act, entitled, an act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels, but was taken sick, and, in a few days afterwards, died without taking it. t

George M. Ogden administered on the estate of Captain Myrick, and on the 22d of November, the court of probates ordered a sale of the effects of the intestate, which was made on the 5th of December following, at which sale Messrs. Harrod and Ogdens became the purchasers of the Neptune, for 7,500 dollars.

On the 19th of January, 1816, Messrs. Harrod and Ogdens addressed a letter to the collector, requesting to be informed whether a register could be granted for the ship Neptune, on the owners taking the oath prescribed by law. The collector replied, by letter dated the 20th, that a register had been refused the ship Neptune, on the ground that the oath, offered to

« 이전계속 »