Page 13. If the proprietary officers knowingly grant a patent for lands out of the Indian purchase, it will enure for the benefit of the grantee, on a purchase of the lands; aliter, where it appears to have been issued without such knowledge. Weiser's lessee v. Moody. 14. Settlements on, or improvements of lands out of the limits of the Indian purchases, after the 3d February 1768, give no title whatever; nor will they be suffered to go to the jury. Drinker's lessee v. Hunter. 15. Where lands have been patented, subsequent surveys thereof are merely void, unless in certain instances. 16. Where there are more than one warrant, or order, in the hands of the deputy surveyor, to be executed on a river or creek, it is his duty to adhere to his instructions, as to the proportion of front on such river or creek, and the extent back therefrom. Bear's lessee v. Russel. 17. A small book of field notes of an imperfect survey, begun by a deputy surveyor, allowed in evidence. Hubley's lessee v. White et al. 18. Surveys in April 1777, by one who acted under a proprietary deputy surveyor, on warrants in 1773, are inofficial, and cannot be given in evidence, as appropriations of the land.-So, of a general draft of the lands by such person. 19. The Board of Property has jurisdiction to grant a re-survey of lands, surveyed in 1773, on a special grant made in 1769, for a larger quantity than 500 acres. 20 A determination of the Board of Property, under the 11th section of the act of 3d April 1792, does not extend to lands held under rights, or contracts, previous to the passing of that law. 21. The words of the act of assembly of 1st April 1784, in the 3d section, are merely directory, and do not avoid a warrant for want of a certificate of two justices of the peace, that the lands were unimproved; or for an improper one. Grant's lessee v. Eddy. 127 129 ib. 130 133 ib. ib ib. 148 22. A warrant describing lands particularly, but stating their situation in one county, when they lie in another, is binding on the commonwealth, after receipt of the purchase money. ib. 23. Priority of application under the act of 3d April 1792, gives a certain de- ib. 211 (So, in Funston's lessee v. M'Mahon pa. 245. 25. A survey adopted by the land office, though not made by the regular officer, may be read in evidence. Shield's lessee v. Buchannan. 26. A precise warrant or application, will take place of an indescriptive one, though earlier; but the latter, though shifted from the spot seemingly called for, if fairly surveyed, appropriated and returned, when there was no intervening, opposing right, will hold the lands. Irwin's lessee v. Moore. 223 27. Convenient certainty to a common intent, is sufficient in warrants, or aplications. ib. 28. A. military permission, not followed up by settlement, gives no preference to lands. 29. Improvements on lands not purchased from the Indians, or made after the 31. It is not necessary that there should be a caveat filed, or hearing before the ib. 224 ib. 227 82. Actual settlers under the law of 3d April 1792, must have a survey made ib. 244 Page 34. A return of survey, at least, is necessary to vest an equitable interest in lands, different from those described in the application. Funston's lessee v. M'Mahon. 35. Original notes of a survey, found among the official papers of the deputy surveyor, may be read in evidence: bnt an indorsement thereon, that it belonged to the surveyor, or his declarations that he had made no actual survey, shall not be given in evidence to affect bona fide purchasers, who do not claim under him. 245 ib. 36. The usage of the land office, and the practice of deputy surveyors in early times, to make surveys without warrants, on being paid certain sums of money, will be received in evidence. Woods's lessee v. Galbreath. 306, 37. The marked trees and lines of a survey shall govern, not the return of a survey, which is only evidence of it. Yoder's lessee v. Fleming. 38. Papers found in the office of the deputy surveyor of the district, and in his hand-writing, may be given in evidence to impeach his return of survey. Adam's lessee v. Goodlander. 311 313 39. Improvements within the Indian purchase of 1768, will not affect lottery orders, but may give a preference to lands really vacant, when made after the purchase, and opening of the land office. 40. One putting in two applications, in the lottery of 3d April 1769, for the 43. An application, whereon the party has not attempted to make a survey, is within the limitation act of 26th March 1785, though the adverse party has obtained a survey thereon. ib. 315 ib. 318 ib. 329 44. To give efficacy to an improvement against a written title, under the law of 3d April 1792, the former must appear clearly to subsist as such, before the commencement of the latter. Hepburn's lessee v. Hutchinson. 45. Improvements formerly considered as mere chattels, (in 1745,) and sold as such in the course of administration. Green's lessee v. Creamer et al. 378 46. Improvements on lands not purchased from the Indians before 1768, and not duly followed up, animo residendi, and where the party has not removed in consequence of the governor's proclamation of 24th February 1768, not received in evidence. Hurden's lessee v. Chaffen et al. 439 47. The certificate of Virginia commissioners is not conclusive evidence against a Pennsylvania claimant, but may be controverted. Hyde's lessee v. Tor rence. 48. Copy of a survey alone can ascertain when it was made, and parol proof 50. An improvement right is barred by the limitation act of 26th March 1785, 440 446 ib. 447 51. The certificate of the Virginia commissioners must be judged of by its own words. Parol proof will not be allowed to contradict, or vary it. James's lesssee v. Park et al. 52. Those commissioners never granted two certificates to the same person, unless one of them expressed that he held as assignee of another. 53. Settlements to be made of lands, under the act of 3d April 1792, commence from 22d December 1795. Morris's lessee v. Neighman et al. 54. Where a settlement has been prevented by Indian hostilities, the state alone can take advantage of forfeitures for non-settlement, by granting 448 ib. 450 new warrants. 55. Parol evidence may be received to designate the claim of another, called for in a location, but not to set up an independent right to lands claimed under a military permit, not produced, and where an office right has not been taken out in a reasonable time afterwards. Duncan's lessee v. Rob esen. ib. 454 Page 56. The law of 1700, that the home seat of a debtor shall not be sold till a year after judgment, is now obsolete, and not practiced under. Moorhead's lessee v. Pearce. 57. An improvement abandoned gives no claim; but when made bona fide, and duly followed up, will be preferred to a general indescriptive warrant, without a survey. Neave's lessee v. Edwards et al. -So, Sturgeon's lessee v. Waugh. 58. The limitation act of 26th March 1785, bars a recovery on an improvement, where there has not been a possession for seven years before the bringing of the action, though there has been a decision of the Board of Property to survey the land for the improver; no steps having been taken to get the lands surveyed. Sturgeon's lessee v. Waugh. 59. The 11th section of the act of 3d April 1792, does not apply to cases of lands improved at the time of passing that law. Albright's lessee v. M'Ginnis. 60. On Maryland titles, where no boundaries are usually expressed, except the place of beginning; and the lands are afterwards run out and marked by a surveyor, with the concurrence of the party, those lines shall conclude him; and the variation of the compass ceases to have any influence on the limits of the tract. Emmets's lessee v. Robinson et al. LESSOR, LESSEE. 456 463 476 476 485 515 1. Landlord cannot support an ejectment against his lessee, without a forfeiture of his lease. Penns's lessee v. Divellin et al. 309 LEGACY, LEGATEE. 1. A legacy or trust is not within the statute of limitations; but after a length of time payment will be presumed; yet such presumption may be rebutted by other circumstances. Durdon v. Gaskill. 2. Iudebitatus assumpsit will not lie for a legacy against an executor; aliter, against a devisee who receives money belonging to another legatee. 3. Devise of lands to a second son, and his heirs, he or they paying to a daughter 3007. within three months after the expiration of a lease under which the lands were, and also 1507, within three months after the death of testator's wife, (to whom an annuity of 271. per annum was devised out of the said lands during life,) the legacies are vested, and transmissible to representatives, though the legatee dies before the day of payment. Stone's adm'rs v. Massey. 268 ib. 363 4. A legatee dying before the testator, his legacy is lapsed; and where a residue is devised to several, though some of them are not executors, and there are no words pointing to a tenancy in common, and one of them dies in testator's life-time his share shall survive. Robinson v. Robinson's ex'rs. 525 5. Divers devises in one will, of the same thing; the last devise shall take place. ib. LIEN. 1. Quere, Whether in the case of a mortgage to an individual for the security of the payment of a sum of money, the lien of the mortgage continues, notwithstanding a sale by the sheriff under a subsequent judgment, until he has received the full demand?-Resolved to be clearly so, in the case of a mortgage to the trustees of the general loan office. Febiger's lessee v. Craighead. 42 2. One agreeing with another to take up lands, whereof the legal title is to remain in himself, with power of selling to others, but to account to his partner for a certain proportion of the sales, and conveying the same to a creditor without notice, for a pre-existing debt, who sells the same, the original partner has a lien on his proportion of the sales. Irwin v. Singer. 266 %. No child of an intestate can defeat the operation of the law respecting the appraisement of lands; but their vendees, or judgment creditors, have a lien on the child's proportion of the valuation money. Diermond's lessee v. Robinson et al. 324 4. Plaintiff does not lose his lien, though sheriff do not remove the goods levied on. Cox v. M'Dongall. 434 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 1. The act of 26th March 1785, does not respect sheriff's deeds under commissioner's sales. Wistar's lessee v. Kammerer. 100 LIMITATION, &c.] ( 609 ) [MORTGAGE, &c. Page 2. Unliquidated accounts between merchants in the capacity of principal and factor, are not within the act of limitation. Stiles, in error v. Donaldson. 105 8. A legacy, or trust, are not within the act of limitations; but after a length of time payment will be presumed; yet such presumption may be rebutted by other circumstances. Durdon v. Gaskill. 4. Plea of the act of limitations added in trespass for mesne profits. Whitehill's lessee v. Lousey. 5. An application, whereon the party has not attempted to make a survey, is within the limitation act of 26th March 1785, though the adverse party has obtained a survey thereon. Ewing's lessee v. Barton. 6. Act of limitation applies to a general indebitatus assumpsit, brought for moneys under a settlement by two administrators in the Orphan's Court. Gemberling v. Myer's administrators. 7. If narr. in ejectment is served within six months after the decision of a caveat, though not entered on the docket, will take it out of the 11th section of the act of 3d April 1792. Nicholson's lessee v. Wallis. 8. An improvement right is barred by the limitation act of 26th March 1785; if there has been no possession within seven years, though an indictment of forcible entry and detainer has been found against the defendant, and the lands lie on the frontiers. Neilly's lessee v. M'Cormick. 268 279 318 341 416 447 9. When the time once begins, it runs over all mesne acts, such as coverture and infancy. ib. 448 10. Limitation act bars a recovery on an improvement, where there has not been a possession for seven years before the bringing of the action, though there has been a decision of the Board of Property to survey the land for the improver; no steps having been taken to get the lands surveyed. Sturgeon's lessee v. Waugh. LOCATION, (See lands.) 0' 476 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. 1. Malicious prosecution will not lie on a criminal charge, where no indictment MARKET OVERT. 473 1. No marker overt in Pennsylvania, for the sale of goods. Hardy v. Metzgar. 347 MARRIAGE. 1. A marriage had, and the first husband being in full life, a second marriage of the woman is merely void, though the first husband has been absent eight or nine years. Kenley v. Kenley. MARRIAGE ARTICLES. 1. Marriage articles, whereby the title of lands may be affected, should be recorded in six months, under the act of 18th March 1775, in the prpper county; or those titles shall be postponed to a subsequent purchase without notice, express or implied. Foster's lessee v. Whitehill. MASTER AND SERVANT. 1. To constitute an indenture of servitude, express words binding the servant, as such, to the master, are necessary. Respublica v. Keeper of the prison of Philadelphia. 2. Where an apprentice has not been regularly bound by indenture, his master cannot support debt against the clergyman, for marrying him without publication of banns, or consent of such master. Zeiber v. Boss. MORTGAGE, MORTGAGOR, MORTGAGEE. 1. Quære, whether in the case of a mortgage to an individual, for the security of the payment of a sum of money, the lien of the mortgage continues, notwithstanding a sale by a sheriff, under a subsequent judgment, until he has received the full demand?-Resolved to be clearly so, in the case of a mortgage to the trustees of the general loan office, though the oath.or affirmation of the commissioners of the proper county was not filed with the clerk of the sessions. Febiger's lessee v. Craighead. 207 259 257 321 42 Page 2 A. mortgages certain lands to B. and afterwards conveys part thereof to C. N NEGROES. 1. A citizen of Maryland purchasing lands in Westmoreland county, in March 234 -So in John, a negro man v. Dawson. / NEW TRIAL. (See Trial) NONSUIT. 1. The court will not direct a nonsuit on the merits of a case upon complicated matters, both of law and fact. Hubley's lessee v. White et al. 449 143 2. The court will not direst a nonsuit where the proofs are variant and contradictory. Stout v. Rassel. 334 1. A sale under an Orphans' Court order may be proved by parol evidence. 2. A return of sale may be made after the next Orphans' Court. 3. Administrators should begin the sale on the day appointed, but may adjourn it. 4. Where lands held under an equitable title, have been formerly, (as in 1758,) sold, bona fide by administrators, to pay debts, or maintain children, without an order of Orphan's Court, such sales will be established. Campbell's lessee v. Rheim et al. 5. Where lands have been directed to be sold by the Orphans' Court for payment of debts of an intestate, &c., the surplus shall be distributable as real estate. Diller v. Young. OYER. 1. The plea of covenants performed, in an action on an agreement, dispenses with oyer. Litle in error v. Henderson. 117 ib. 123 261 295 PARTNER. P 1. In a suit against two partners, one of them who has not been arrested, may 185 190 PAYMENT. 1. A legacy or trust are not within the statute of limitations; but after a length of time payment will be presumed: yet such presumption may be rebutted by other circumstances. Durdon v. Gaskill. 268 |