Case ID: h-j_5/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COURT OF APPEALS,, JUNE TERM,. 1822.
    Steuart vs. Donaldson’s Lessee.
    biyto™mflfrat!ÍS¡ X SUane3T»«hMt Saa™” ppK?¿n to purabafeT'as conjLJió»!* the See«'£atmom” vest ¿title to ‘tile lfhul In the oschcator, although the composition money on the es cheat was no. paid ami the grant not 'put-ehaííe ‘“ioA 10
    Appeal from Baltimore county court. Ejectment for-two lots Qf ground in the city of Baltimore, numbered 398. ail(t 399., The general issue was pleaded. At the trial it was admitted that the lots in question were a part of a tract of land called Mounienay’s Neck, regularly granted in the year 1663, and that the title of the lots had been regularly transmitted to William Frost, who being a British. J . . .... ' subject, said lots were confiscated and vested m this state. _. . • 1 hat Frost is since dead, and died before the year 1800. . J 7-without heirs canable of inheriting. That the defendant, °b the 31 st of January 1815, lodged information in writing, with the governor and council of this state, that said lots were liable to confiscation, and applied to become the purchaser thereof, That he had made a verbal application, to the clerk of the council to. purchase the, said lots in December 1813, and upon the information and application in, 1815, the executive ordered the said lots t.o be valued, which, was done, at the sum of 82100,. in 1817, and sold to the defendant for S1850, the residue being allowed by them to him for the expense of public paving paid by him on said, lots. That the lessor of the. plaintiff applied for and obtained an escheat warrant on the 4th of February 1814, to effect said lots as escheat, gnd having paid 8850, two thirds of the valuation of the same, made as by law is required, on the 27th of July 1815, in pursuance thereof, a patent; was granted to him upon a certificate of survey dated the 8th of January 1815. The plaintiff then prayed the court to direct the jury, that op this evidence he was entitled tq recover. Which direction the’court,, \ Ward, A. J.3gave. The defendant exceptedj and the verdict and judgment be-, ipg against him, he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Earle, and Steehen, J.
    
      
      Winder and li. Johnson, for the appellant,
    stated, that the questions were, 1. Whether or not the escheat grant and previous proceedings of the lessor of the plaintiff overreached the application of the appellant to purchase the property as liable to confiscation, and the proceedings on such application, and vested in him a complete legal title' to the premises in question?
    2. Whether by the verbal application in 1813, the appellant did not acquire a prior’titletothatof the appellee? They piled and relied on the acts of June \780, ch. 24,sA; October 1780, ch. 45, ch. 49, ch. 51, s. 4, 5; May 1781, ch. 25, s. 32, ch. 57; November 1783, ch. 20, cji. 2, ch. 28, ch. 31; April 1782, ch. 19; 3784, ch. 55, s. S; 1785, ch. 66, ch. 88, s. S; 1788, ch. 49; 3789, ch. 47; 1791, ch. 77, ch. 90,• 1799, ch. 81; 1793, ch. 64; 1795, ok. 6;' 1799, ch. 80; 1802, ch. 101; 1803, ch. 109; 1805, 'ch. 93;' 1814, ch. Í03; 1817, ch. 137. Smith vs. The State oj Maryland, 6 Crunch, 286. Land Hold. Ass. 302. (heingsvs. Nor-wood's Lessee, 2 Harr. §• Johns. 96; and Boxing’s Lessee vs. Lemmon, ante 223,
    
      T. B. Dorsey, (Attorney General,) for the appellee,
    qited the act of November 1781, ch. 90, s. 8. Johns, fKct. tit. Confiscation. S Bac, Jib. tit. Grants, (I) 393; Kelly’s Lessee vs. Greenfield, 2 Harr. 8f M-IIcn. 321. King gold’s Lessee vs. Maloit, 1 Harr. %• Johns. '298; and Livings vs. Norwood’s Lessee, 2 Harr, fy Johns. 96.
   Chase, Ch, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts, he said, the question to be determined by the court on the above facts is, Has the grant of the state vested a legal estate in the lessor of the plaintiff in the lands in question?

It appears to the coiipt, that William Stenart has not acquired any interest, legal or equitable, in the lands in question. He made no written application to the executive until some time after the date of the certificate of the plain-, tiff. No caveat was entered against the -issuing of the grant. No money was paid the state by him, and no application for a valuation of the land until almost two years after the grant was obtained. This is not the case of-con;-* llicting titles of persons claiming under the state.

There is nothing appearing in the case to impeach the grant, no fraud or imposition is stated Qr suggested as. prac*. tised by the lessor of the plaintiff in the obtcntion of fee, grant, but a full consideration was paid by him according to law.

The court are of «¡pinion, that the patent is valid and operative to pass the title of tb.£ state to the land in question to the lessor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.