Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-01-30
QUESTION OF PATENT
A DECISION THAT MAY POSSIBLY AZ
Feet MANY VIRGINIA ESTATES.
An Unsigned Abstract From the Land VI
fce Not Accepted rs Proof-other
supreme-Court Cases.

nC1lQ. III NIllGI MI Va hA~
curred, in aland-patent case, which, though
local in its character, is OF very general In
terest because of the important question
involved.
The style of the case was Holloran Us.
Meisel and il went up on an appeal
from the Judgment Of. the Circuit Court OF
the city of Richmond.
The property in controversy CONSISTS OF
n little less than four acres OF real estate
on Chelsea Hill to which two parties claim
ffbonoh the opinion does not enter deep
lv into the discussion Of what constitutes
proof Of the genuineness or patents Issued
In colonial days, some who heard IL read
eynressed the belief that under It's ruling
the title to many old estates might posi-
bly, be brought in question.
FACTS N TIE CASE.
Tho record disclosed the tact that James
II Holloran, the plaintiff in error, obtain
al from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Grant for tract Of land lying IN the cOun-
Nv of Henrico, near the city OF Richmond,
Containing 3 S4-100 acres, on the 18th day
az February. 1887; that the saId grant was
obtained after the said Holloran had had
the said land surveyed and he had com
piled fully with ell the requirements OF the
law: that the said land was and had been
On the commons and waste and unapprO-
nT,ated mn to three or four years before
the rendition Of the said Judgment. and
that no one laid claim thereto; that some
three or four years before the Judgment
was rendered the defendants in error fenced
the land in and were in possession OF the
same AZ the time of the institution OF this
shit and that Holloran demanded OF them
possession OF the land prior TO the lnstitu-
ton of the action Of ejectment; that
the land had not been 1891 on t wSo amt II
was put on by Holloran; that by deed
dated June 5, 1893, Thomas Il. McCorkle
and wife conveyed to Philip Meisel q parcel
of land adjoining the said land granted 10
the said James Holloran, but that the last
mentioned deed did not embrace the land
granted to Holloran, but did embrace ana
convey only a separate and distinct parcel
of land known as Chelsea, fully described
in the deed and the plat thereto annexed;
and the only ground upon which the ue;
PENDANTS rested their claim to the land
granted to HOlloran was tpat the land was
embraced in O grant from the Colonial
Government of Virginia IN 1857 to Joshua
Stepp (or Stapp) for 277 acres OF land
without pretending or undertaking in any
way 10 trace their title back 70 said Stapp;
but on the contrary, the record shows con-
cluslvely that the defendants never re-
ceived conveyance for the land IN dis
pute from any one and never laid any
claim thereto by reason of any purchase
from any one, but only enclosed 1t as adj
joining the land which they die purchase
from McCOrkle some three or four years
before the rendition of the judgment CON-
planned of.
THE INSTRUCTIONS ERRONEOUS.
Uy1,or tho case was tried in the Circuit
Court of Richmond the jury brought in
verdict for the defendants and the Court
entered Judgment thereon. The in
structions asked for by both the plain
tiiTs and defendants counsel were re-
iected and the court instructed the
Jury that if they "believe from the evil
dence that the patent dated October II;
1857. to Joshua Stapp for 277 acres Of land
included the land in controversy, then the
land was not after that waste and unappro-
priated; and the grant of the property IN
controversy to James Holloran by the
patent in evidence was void, and they
must find for the defendant. But unless
the iury believe that the land in contro-
versy was included in the patent TO Stapp
they should find for the plaintiff" The
Supreme Court holds that this instruction
was erroneous under the facts proved in
the record. 1.-THE defendant Mesel,"
the opinion says, "entered upon the
land without title or claim or even
color of title. and as a mere intruder upon
land not his own, having only a bare and
naked possession without a shadow of
RIGHT Holloran, the plaintiff, by his
Grant from the Commonwealth on the 18th
day of February, 1887, as shown IN evidence,
acquired pr-inlG Jdcie title TO the land
granted in fee, and was purchaser for
valuable consideration with both night
of property and right OF actual posses
sion"
CLAIMS OF THE DEFENCE.
"Meiseps defence against the claim of
Holloran by virtue of his grant from the
Commonwealth" Judge Fauntleroy goes
ON to say, us that there is an outstanding
title in a third person TO whom the land
had been previously patented by the Colo
NAL Government in l6S7--one Joshua Stapp.
But the copy of the paper dated October
u. 1857, put in evidence TO prove O patent
for the land in controversy granted 10
Joshua Stapp by Lord Howard as Colonial
Governor OF Virginia October q, 1887,
is without signature or seal, and
shows upon its face never 10
have been executed, and therefore
void and imperative as a grant or instru7
ment of conveyance. 1t Is simply VOID
upon its face as a grant or valid patent tor
the land, taking it out of the category of
waste and Incorporated land. And even
if the said unaxecuted and incomplete
paper of the 21st of October, 1857, could az
a matter of law be operative TO pass the
title out of the Commonwealth, there was no
survey OF plat or map according to the
metes and bounds of the said paper ex-
hibited in evidence TO identify this 1884
acres of land as part of the III acres
alleged to have been patented TO Stapp 200
years ago. and which since 1918 has lain
waste without an owner or even On occu-
pier or claimant. and without appearing
upon the land-books until 1t was squatted
upon by Meisel who claims under nobody
and traces no title from any source"
NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
The opinion then proceeds to discuss
wherein the Circuit Court erred in as
Stunning the paper Of October 2l, 1851, to be
a grant and IN taking from the jury the
question as to whether prior patent had
been executed and issued for the land and
leaving TO the jury only the question of the
identity Of the locus an quo as part of an
assured valid grant. The law with refer
ence to the issuance of patents Is quoted
at some length, and it is held that the
paper Of October II, 1887, was admissible
only as memorandum from the colonial
records tending to prove that proceedings
had been taken looking to an execution
and issuing Of grant to be followed up
If possible by evidence tending TO show
that the grant so contemplated and begun
was actually executed, issued, and de-
lvered.
The judgment Of the lower court is re-
versed and the case remanded TO the Cir
cult Court for new trial, upon which, if
the evidence be the same, the jury snail be
instructed TO find verdict for the plain
TIFF.
other Supreme-Court Cases.
Barton's executor against Brent. From
the Circuit Court of Frederick county.
Reversed in part and otherwise affirmed,
Judge Lewis delivering the opinion.
Dunmore against Lyle. From the Cir
cult Court Of Augusta county. Affirm ed,
Judge Lacy delivering the opinion; Judge
Richardson dissenting.
Hunter against Beach. From the Circuit
Court of Alexandria county. Affirmed,
Judge Hinton delivering the opinion /;
Judge Fauntleroy dissenting.
Tune against Fallen. From the Circuit
Court of Northumberland county. Re-
versed, Judge Lacy delivering opinion.
De Farges against Ryland & Brooks.
From the Circuit Court OF King and Queen