their validity from the laws of
Virginia, and confirmed by the
compact between the two states.
Id.
212
3. The general rule is, that reme-
dies in respect to real property
are to be pursued according to
the lex loci rei sita. The sta-
tutes of the two states are to be
construed as giving the same va-
lidity and effect to the titles in
the disputed territory as they
had, or would have, in the
state by which they were grant-
ed, leaving the remedies to en-
force such titles to be regulated
by the lex fori. Il.
219
4. In the above case, it was held
that the statute of limitations of
Tennessee was not a good bar to
the action, there being no proof
that the lands in controversy
were always within the original
limits of Tennessee, and the sta-
tute could not begin to run until
it was ascertained by the compact
of 1802 that the land fell within
the jurisdictional limits of Ten-
nessce. Id.
1. The state of North-Carolina, by
ch. 33. the United States held
the domain of the vacant lands in
Tennessee, ubject to the right
which North Carolina retained
of perfecting the inchoate titles
created under her laws. Id. 536
The act of North Carolina of
1803, ch. 3. grants to Tennessee
irrevocably, the power of per-
fecting titles to land reserved to
North Carolina by the cession
act, and is assented to by con..
gress, in their act of 1806, ch.
31. Id.
536
The act of congress of 1806, ch.
31. does not violate the cession
act.
Id.
538
The terms "beyond seas," in the
proviso or saving clause of the
statute of limitations of Georgia,
of 1767, are equivalent to with-
out the limits of the state; and a
party who is without those lim-
its is entitled to the benefit of
the exception. Murray v. Ba-
ker,
341
her act of cession of the western See LOCAL LAW, 2, 3.
lands, of 1786. ch. 3. recited in
the act of Congress of 1790, ch.
33. accepting that cession, and by
her act of 1803, ch. 3. ceding to
Tennessee the right to issue
grants, has parted with her right See LICENSE, 2
to issue grants for lands within
the state of Tennessee, upon en-
tries made before the cession.
Burton v. Williams,
529
2. But it seems that the holder of
such a grant may resort to the
equity jurisdiction of the United
States' courts for relief. Id. 540
3. Under the cession act of North
Carolina of 1789, ch. 3. ratified
by the act of Congress of 1790
1. C. C., born in the colony of New-
York, went to England in 1738,
where he resided until his de-
cease; and being seized of lands
in New-York, he, on the 30th
November, 1776, in England,
devised the same to the defend-
ant,and E. C. as tenants in com
and dispose of the same in the
same manner as any natural born
citizen might do. The defend.
ant, at the time of the action
brought, still continued to be a
British subject. Held, that le
was entitled, under the 9th sec-
tion of the treaty of 1794, be-
tween the United States and
Great Britain, to hold the lands
so devised to him by G. C. and
transferred to him by E. C.,
Jackson, ex dem. The People of
New-York, v. Clarke,
mon, and died so seized on the
10th December, 1773. The de-
fendant, and E. C., having en-
tered and becoming possessed
E. C., on the 3d December,
1791, bargained and sold to the
defendant all his interest.
defendant and E. C. were both
born in England long before the
revolution. On the 22d March,
1791, the legislature of New-
York passed an act to enable the
defendant to purchase lands, and
to hold all other lands which he
might then be entitled to within
the state, by purchase or des- See ALIEN.
sant, in fee simple, and to sell
|