The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1856-03-06
I1..aSlIlX of JseleiaI Desslslons g !.

decided in the Supreme Court which has.
called out considerable notice from the press;
but, 80 far as sican see, very few Of the
editors understand the point involved. The |
case has tcsqsevl unfonpnaie i'll feeling be. |
tweetf Jnh haalBtahkl l.lLI,s.r brethren, and in !
2 ohastyo moment he has said much 10 yder.l
ogae from the public respect and reverence
for the law. TrueiLe case illustrates sad
instability ic the legal decisions Of our high
est tribunal, but tits plain tha, the majority
Of the court (from whose opinion judge
Black dissentsj are only restoring the law
as Il first stood in this State. 4n,r s3
In September, 1914, the Supreme Cour: of
Pennsylvania decided that where a new sur
vey interfsres with or runs over an unim.
proved old one, and improvements are made
on the new survey, ibul moi Within the limit
of The indifference, the owner of the new
survey can notify :itle or prescription claim
any right 10 such Interference which he has
rever improved. He is presumed to have
taken notice OF, and 10 have been warned by
the old lines when he made his junior sur.
vey and there is no presumption from his
possession outside oil those old lines that he
claimed or held any right within them. This
WIS IN rne case OF Cluggage VS.. Duncan, 1. S.
& r. 100. In June 1916 al Sunbury the Su-
preme Court decided anolbe er case reiteraling
the same rule of law. (2.S. s. r. 436.)
In 1s47 Judge Woodward in the Common
Pleas of Centre county decided a case upon
the same principle. But The Supreme Court
changed the la0, and reversed Judge Wood
ward and The two old cases; which had serv.
} ed as The basis of number oe like decisions
! in Nisi Prius and other lower courts. Is Barr
,3O0.) This latter decision was then follow
ed, until in the case we first alluded to, a
majority Of Judges restore the law of 1914
and 1916, and come back 10 The old common
law principle. In fact, Judge Black himself.
when this last case was previously before
the Supreme Court in 1852 said lha, the de.
cision Of 1847 was an innovation and change
of the old common law as it had been enuh.
ciated from the days OF tie Revolution until
ls47. e Harris 3Os.) 'h-5 u
Ii it be said that the owner OF the old sur.
vey in this case made no improvement upor
bis land, the answer is--neither did The hold
er Of the new survey take any possession of
the Interference, or show any disposition 10
claim within il. If be said that the defend.
q ant in such case only squats upon the old
survey, and is therefore only trespasser
the reply is-so loo is the holder of the new
survey trespasser as 10 the Interference;
b and it is well settled that plaintiff in ejecI.
ment must recover upon the strength of his
own title, and not upon the weakness of The
.defendant's. Where neither has title the
. law leaves them where it finds them.
The following is the conclusion of Judge
Blacks opinion. 1t is very bite. against his
! brethren but we think his blow lodges up.
or tEose who Hrst changed the law in 1877.
'The judsmentnow about to be given is
one of deaths doings.' No one can doubt
that if Judge Gibson and Judge, Coulter had
lived, the plaintiff could not have been thus
deprived OF his property; and thousands of
other men would have been saved from the
imminent danger to which 'hey are now ex-
posed of losing the homes they have labor
ed and paid for. But they are dead and
the law which should have protected those
sacred rights has died with them. II is
melancholy reflection tha; the property OF
citizen should be held by tenure so frail.-
But new lords, new laws is the order of
the day. Hereafter il any man is offered
tile which the Supreme Court has decided
to be good, lei him not buy, if the Judges ,eho
made the decision are dead; if they are living
let him get an insurance on their ires, for ye
know not what day or an hour may bring
forth.
"The majority Of this Court changes, on
the average, once every nine years, without
counting the chances of death and resigna.
'lon. III each new set of judges shall
consider themselves al liberty 10 overthrow
the doctrines oi their predecessors, our sys-
TEN Of jurisprudence Gf sy stem it may be
calied) would be the most tickle, uncertain
and vicious that the civilized world ever saw.
A French Constitution, or South American
republic, or Mexican administration, would
be an immortal thing IN comparison 10 the
shorl-lived principles of Pennsylvania law
The rules of properly, which ought 10 be as
steadfasl as the hills, will become as unsla-
BILE as the waves. To avoid this great aa,n-
ity, know of no resource but that OF stare de-
eisis. | claim nothing foi the great men who
have gone before us oil The score of their
marked and manifest superiority. But
would stand by their decisions, because they
have passed into the laws and become part
Of it--have been relied on and acted on-and
rights have grown up under them which II is
unjust and cruel to lake away.
mal WHERE 10 ANTI-NEBRAsKAg
The Know Nothing party of this Stale pre-
tended TO be opposed TO the principle OF pop
ular sovereignty as embodied in the Nebrss-
ka bill, and under that pretence fshed for
votes. The late Convention al Philadelphia