Case ID: yeates_2/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of Robert Dunning, William Dunning, John Dunning, Ezekiel Dunning, and Mark Dunning against Martin Washmudt.
    Order of the board of property may be read in evidence respecting the survey under which one of the parties claims, though the caveat was filed by a third person.
    Ejectment for 23 acres and 128 perches of land in West Pennobro’ township.
    The lessors of the plaintiff claimed as children of John Dunning, under two warrants dated 1743, and a survey thereon of 219 acres and 145 perches, made by John Armstrong, deputy surveyor, on the 19th June 1764, returning 173 acres and 132 perches part thereof, as claimed by Thomas Calhoon, in right of a grant to his father John Calhoon.
    
      The defendant held under an application of Oliver Kilgore, dated 3d March 1767, a survey thereon by Samuel Lyon, deputy surveyor, made 4th September 1788-, and a patent to Gabriel Glen, dated 13th November 1788, which took in the lands in question.
    The defendant offered in evidence the decision of the board of property, made 24th November 1766, on a caveat filed against the plaintiff’s survey, by the aforesaid Thomas Calhoon, in behalf of the devisees of the said John Calhoon, in the lifetime of the aforesaid John Dunning, wherein the survey of Armstrong was rejected.
    This was objected to, because it did not relate to the lands now in controversy, and was between other parties. A record in such a case would be no evidence. It is ho argument to say that it is regularly certified under seal; it must be pertinent to the point in issue.
    But the court directed it to be read ; valeat quantum, valer potest. It is the act'of the proper office respecting the survey under which the lessors of the plaintiff claim ; but the effect of it must certainly be confined to the devisees of John Calhoon and those claiming under him.
    Messrs. Duncan and Watt, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Hamilton and M’Gihen, pro def.
    
   Verdict for the plaintiff.