Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-10-23

"tlt u1 lltIfl Ait"'y p"
surveyor living in tEis county. John
Il. Cutie, who was then County survey.
or of Cleartield county, approved the
surveys thus made by Trczyulny, but
endorsed upon the return that in his
opinion tho land was not vacant and
these surveys interiered with surveys
made in 1898, upon warrants granted to
George Bck ham. Jacob X. Howell, vii.
liam Shelf, and others.
These surveys were accepted by the
Surveyor General, and on the 29th of
October, 1859, patents were issued by
the Commonwealth, to Jacob Burley
and +. j. Pruner for their respective
tracts. On December 80, 1864, Pruner
and Burley conveyed these two tracts OF
land to Samuel G.. Smith, a citizen OF
New Jersey. The plaintiffs have given
in evidence deed dated March %,
1878, from Charles II. Smith and Sallie
V, his wife, Samuel l.. Burrough and
Mary Ann, his wife, Jacob II. Lippincott
and Martha A., his wife, John l.. Dough.
ty and Emma H., his wife, Samuel e..
Smith and Agnes II. Smith, by their
guardian, Ann W. Smith, children and
heirs at law of Samuel G. Smith, late of
t1huuOnltlu, NOW bfIftNs lfNfaHfh ,
Ann W. Smith, his widow. and Ann W.
Smith, Charles II. Smith and Joseph G..
Shinn, his executors, TO l.. j. Pruncr
for these same two tracts. The will of
Samuel G. Smith, il he made one, has
not been given in evidence, nor has any
authority been shown in Ann w. Smith,
the guardian OF Samuel {. Smith, Jr.,
and Agnes II. Smith, to convey the es
state of her wards. The defendants
contend, that this deed conveys no title
to Edward j. Pruncr. We, however,
instruct you, for the purposes of this
suit, that if you believe from the testI.
mony OF +. j. Pruner, that Charles II.
Smith, Mary Ann Burrough, Martha \.
Lippincott, Emma l.. Doughty, Samuel
c. Smith, Jr., and Agnes II. Smith were
children and all the children of Samuel
c. Smith, late of IIaddonfeld, New
Jersey, then this deed would bc "A prop.
er and legal conveyance OF the interest
of those heirs who had obtained their
majority. and would therefore be good
conveyance OF the undivided four s.xths
part Of all the right, title and interest Of
Samuel c. Smith, Of, in and to, these
two tracts OF nud The plaintiffs have
also shown a deed dated April 7th, 1877,
from +. J. Pruner to Jacob Burlcy for
the undivided one third part of this
land.
To what ever extent the plaintiff
have thus shown the title to these two
warrants TO have been conveyed 10 l..
j. Pruner by the deed of March Goth,
1873, to that extent they are entitled 10
recover in this action, if the land upon
which their warrants were located, was
vacant and unappropriated land in
1859 when these warrants were located
upon it. If, however; this land had
been previously appropriated by war.
rant and survey, it would not be vacant
land upon which a new warrant could
be legally located, and the plaintiffs
would take no title whatever, under
their warrants, surveys and patents.
The defendants have given in evi.
dence warrants, dated May 10th, 1898,
to George Bickh Jacob r. Howell,
William Johnson and Philip Loast, re-.
spectively, for 400 acres each, and sur.
veys made in pursuance Of said war.
rants on the ! lth and 18th days Of July,
1898. and patents for each Of the tracts
to Richard Peters in 1896 aud 1897.
They have also given in evidence con.
veyances of this title by various means
to DR.. Daniel Houtz, in 1858, six years
before the plaintiffs warrants were Is.
sued. The defendants have also shown
the payment of taxes on these four
tracts from 1905 down TO the brin ging
of this suit by the various owners Of the
title. The defendants further contend.
that the GEORGE Bickham and Jacob r.
Howell tracts cover the land in dispute,
and Of course are interfored with hy the
PLAINTIFF two surveys. This raises the
question as to the proper location Of the
tracts claimed by the defendants. II
they were located in 1898 80 as TO cover
the land in dispute, no title to this
land remained in the Common wealth,
which could be granted in 1859. to the
plaintiffs. Whenever the Common.
wealth has once granted and conveyed,
any particular piece or tract Of land,
any Subsequent grant or conveyance of
il, by the State, is "a absolutese -
and void. as II the same thing WIZ
by an individual. III
The original title 10 all lapls "A Ia
sylvania il, since the revolttbp I,
by law, IN the State or Coutnnwk 10.
Regulations have been esuiisb I'D by
statute, from time TO time, for the sale
and conveyance by the Commonwealth
to individuals, of such portions Of land
"a remained vacant and public. 1t ia
unnecessary in this suit TO explain any
of the various methods provided by
law, 10y which individuals could acquire
tile to portions Of the public land, ex.
cept tho one method, 10y warrant, sur.
vey and patent.
Whenever an individual desired to
acquire title to any portion OF land
still owned by the Commonwealth, he
made application in writing to the land
office, specifying the quantity desired
Upon paying the price fixed by law to
the Receiver General, a 'crrant or order,
was issued from the land office, directed
a