The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1855-01-12
moot Court Proceedings.
4 anninst R.-cASE STATED.


ping found a pgposirs Of TREASURE, lump OF GOLD,
evidently there for long time
QoeRE-io whom does the treasure helonsi
The opinion OF the Court delivered, Dec. -,
1854, by BLoDGET JOHN Al JUSTICE. In ihIs
ease there Is some little discrepancy between the
pleadings and the facts stated above. The deea-
ion does not state the COLI 10 have been aeposfte,
hut 10 have been a lump OF NATIVE Gold II will
not be mpertInent therefore, or unpiohIabe, 10 con-
sider the question III both points OF view
The term natipe would imply that The gold
di>rorerca in its pyiuiUrc 1ocattfg The word depo-
gepudates this construction, and implies that II
was placed in the position in which II was found by
the agency of mani
We will first consider II as having been discorfyed
in lis original, primitive locality.
B, by virtue OF his contract with a, to have
sail the excavaIed earth within certain dehned IL
mits. The true question, then, l., Does the right of
title 10 this piece OF attre gold pass from a 10 by
virtue of the phraseoosy OF the contract; Is God
embraced by, or included IN, the term EayttE Is
gold component or constituent of Earthi
Eaytk is elenleRt Is Fire, AIR, and Water
Gold is never associated with the elements, ire,
air, and water, but attribute OF Eurb alone!--
signifies the PARTICLES which compose the OF the
Globe" But IN It's more limited sense s'the part-
cies that compose the Moaid or the surface OF The
Gobe.'
That this confined sense meaning of the term
Earth not contemplated by the parties TO this
contract is maniIest-as mould in this region
tends to the depth of an ordinary cellar. And why
should the Court give limited and constTuc-
ton TO the word Earth IN favor oil the Plaintiff and TO
the Getrimeut of the defendant Why not give The
Earth that enlarged, LIBERAL philosophical and
geological interpretation which i entitled ON
It's immensity OF space and depth! particularly hen
such construction harmonlses with the essence and
spirit of the contract!
Il is said by Blackstone in his Commentaries (vo
?, page S) that s'the word iaDd includes on the
tace o the Earth, but every thing Hnder IT, and
II, mines and minerals Inclusive
Ii has been said in argument, by the counsel of
the Plaintiff, that the term iand is broader and
extensive than the word Earth. Blackstone, in the
above passage, the term ipud and earth ndiscr
mina1rly! The terms ares generally, iaaiGsreDHy
used, the 5 the equivalent OF the other '.God
called the dry laud earih,' (Gen c.) and we find
the definition OF ca ith 10 be 'dyy faDd opposed TO
ter" The terms have been used almost invariably
as synonymous, and TO give the term iaHH more
comprehensive embrace than the word enlfh, taking
both words in their most extensive meaning, Is un-
warranted by any authority; aud, we satisfied,
that when this great Globe shall dissolve, and the
earth wltlter like burning SCROLL As,e ,e be b~t
ktfie laHd fefti
1t is also said, by the counsel for the plaintiff that
never contemplated paying unto a lump OF gold,
worth $4,000, for merely digging cellar. We have
no doubt that n had been aware oil the existence
of this treasure the contract would have bern
made, and, il equally presumabIe, that he Gran
tor Who sold the lot question 10 4 would not have
parted with 1t had he been el the
Doubtless the grautor TO sold D09finai cousid-
GRAFTON and passed the whole OF his fe, from tine
Smrtaec to the ceHtre OF the Earth,' including all
''unes and mine fas.''
Would IT not, then be absurd TO say that if the snr-
face (oft times consisting of solid rock Is called
earth, and the centre, consisting OF nobody knows
what's called earth, that the intermediate space.
between the surface and the CENTRE shopd not also
be called earth?
a, then, was the unqualified owner, and had per
feet title 10 the lo in controversy, om the Srface
the centre, until he divested nmself of portion
the earth by his contract with B--not for cash,
true, bu: for its equivalent, time. and toJort The
time eXpended--the labor performed, IA pnT>u-
OF the contract, and 'sIhe iaborer worthy OF
his hire" II would be regarded madness in the
gTantor Of 10 prefer claim To the gold in contro-
versy the ground Of his being ignorant Of lis
isteuce the time OF sale 10 A, upon toe ground
of his not having received an adequate price.
1t is equally absurd 10 say that 4, after having
passed portion of the premises 10 B, for valuable
consideration, under the of the existing
tract, recover from B.
Suppose Instead OF gold, b, IN performing his con-
tract, had thrown up Iron ore, would il not have pas
sed 10 by virtue OF his contract with A Iron Is
only different nqtDsrai. IntrInsicay Iron n4ore
valuable than silver gold, and single plough
share, in point OF practical worth and real utility h
infinitely precious, than the most BRILLIANT tiara
that adorned the brow Of beauty. And the
world could much better dispense with MI the pre-
iron equally "things of earth.'
Suppose further that b. within the limits deSigna-
ted by his contract, had thrown mp quantity of coal
(nere carbon) would not the coal have passed to b,
by, and under the term earth? Or suppose II had
been Lime Stone, in great demand, marble, equal
10 the Parlan Italian, in quality il stlll would
have been nothing bot carbon and would have pas
sed TO B. Peradventure, diamonds might have been
eXcavated whicA Still nothing but carbon in It's
pure and crystazed and all OF them (Hot prma-
bt,r ,ia fbaay
have passed TO under The comprehensive term
Z earth.
1t Is most truly said that when we suffer cur hearts
TO be where treasure is, when we are g!oating
over our heaps OF gold, we cllnging to the things
Of eagH
Had digged deeper than he was warranted, by
virtue OF his contract, he might have been treated
as a trespasser 9b initiO--or had he eXcavated any
substance lying deeper than his contract warranted
him To 20. The toIt, also, might have been waived
and upon conversion OF such substance action of
trover brought. But not having exceeded the limits
of his contract in the appropriation 10 his use,
of all substances excavated by him. his conversion is
not heyORgjai, but fully justified by the terms of hls
contract.
Contracts untainted by fraud entered into and ex-
ecuted in good faith, where there no legal dsabi-
ty subsstng the parties 10 the contract, must be
enforced. And the crcums ances of the party
OF he first part, the party OF the second part, de-
irving greater benefit than originally contem-
plated, makes difference.
Had the gold been placed the lot Of A, buried
for coHceament, the maxim Of CHjRs est SoiHnt, &c.
wonld not apply. The maxim only applies to the
EARTH land with all its improvements, ITS natur-
al native state, and certainly would not divest the
OF treasure that had been perhaps stolen
from him and there concealed. In such there
would have been legal disability in A to bring tro-
ver he had neither right OF property the
right of possession. Neither would be entitled 10
the property against the original although he
may have bought out the right of c, the true Under
&, the finder, hqH the right of property and the right
of possession against t. and all the world, ex-
cep the rightfuI owner 3d. S. N. P, title TRovER,