Case Name: Hall's Lessee vs. Gough
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1801-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hall’s Lessee vs. Gough.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 119–127

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1801.
Hall’s Lessee vs. Gough.
Deeds for different parts of a whole tract of land located on the plots, may be read in evidence, though such deeds are not themselves severally located.
The jury may presume a grant regularly issued where there had been a certificate of stirvey returned, and sundry conveyances and possession by per*» sons claiming thereunder.
The register of the land office examined as a witness as to the loss of records of Ins ofiiee, and as to certain practices which prevailed therein previous to the revolution.
Ejectment for a tract of land called Reprisal, lying in Baltimore county. Defence on warrant, and plots returned.
1. The plaintiff at the trial, to make title to the land in the declaration mentioned, offered in evidence to the jury a patent for the said land, granted to the lessor of the plaintiff, on the 17th of November 1798, in virtue of a certificate of survey returned under a warrant of proclamation.
The defendant then produced and read in evidence to the jury, tiie certificate of a tract of land called Thompson’s Choice, surveyed for James Thompson on the 12th of March 1679, which is the same land mentioned in the said patent to the lessor of the plaintiff; $nd in order to prove that the whole of the said land called Thompson’s Choice, was conveyed by James Thompson, for whom the said certificate was made, and by Arthur Thompson, the heir at law of the said'. James Thompson, produced and offered to read in evidence to the jury two deeds, the one from the said James Thompson to Gabriel Parrott, for 200 acres part of the said tract of land, dated the 4th of January 1693, and the other from the said Arthur Thompson to Joseph Wilson, for the residue of the said tract of land, dated the 25th of August 1702. The defendant-also produced and offered to read in evidence to the jury, sundry deeds, which are hereafter more particularly described, from the said Parrott and Wilson, above mentioned, down to the present holders of the said land, for the whole of the said tract of land called Thompson’s Choice.
The jury way Jives time a grant regularly issued ^vhere there had Leen a certificate of survey returned, and sundry conveyances and possession by persons claiming thereunder.
To the reading of which two deeds the plaintiff objected, because the said deeds are not located on the plots returned in this cause.
Buyaee, J. The Court are of opinion, that the said deeds are admissible in evidence to prove that the whole of the tract of land called Thompson’s Choice is covered and conveyed by the said deeds, although not located on the plots returned in this cause. The plaintiff excepted.
2. The plaintiff, to make title to the land in the declaration of ejectment mentioned, produced and read in evidence to the jury, a patent to the lessor of the plaintiff for the land in the declaration mentioned, dated the 17th of November 1798, reciting, “that whereas Aquila Mall, esquire, of Baltimore county, on the 11th day of May 1797, obtained out of the land office for the western shore, a special warrant of proclamation, to resurvey and affect a tract of land called Thompson’s Choice, lying in the county aforesaid, originally on the 12th of March 1679, resurveyed for James Thompson, by virtue of the following warrants, to wit: a warrant for 550 acres, and a warrant for 250 acres, as appears by the certificate of the said survey, containing 1000 acres, which said certificate had not been compounded on as the law requir ed: In pursuance whereof a resurvey was made for and in the name of the said Jlquila Hall, esquire, and a certificate thereof returned to the said land office, containing 964 acres, called Reprisal; and he having, pursuant to law, paid to the treasurer of the western shore the sum of 2641 7s 6d, being the full composition due for the said land and improvements thereon, The State of Maryland doth hereby grant unto the said Jlquila Hall the said tract of land called Reprisal, lying in Baltimore county aforesaid, beginning,” &c. “and containing and now laid out for 964 acres more or less, according to the certificates of resurvey taken; and returned to the land office, bearing date the 28th of April 1798,” &c.
The defendant, in order to prove that the said land mentioned in the patent to the lessor of the plaintiff by the name of Thompson's Choice had been before, to wit, in the year 1679, patented to one James Thompson, and therefore not liable to be proclamated, produced and read in evidence to the jury the certificate for the tract of land called Thompson’s Choice, dated the 12th of March 1679, which is for the same land mentioned by the name of Thompson’s Choice, in the patent under which the plaintiff makes title, and the same land located upon the plots in this cause returned, by that name; and which said certificate is as follows, to witt
«James Thompson’s Cert. 1000 acres, "1 March 12, Thompson’s Choice. Rent. 2l. sterl. S1679. By virtue of a warrant granted unto James Thompson, of Calvert county, gentleman, for 550 acres of land, bearing date the 14th of January last, and by virtue of a warrant granted unto the said Thompson for 250 acres of land, bearing date the 24th of January last, These are therefore, in humble manner to certify ? that I, George Holland, deputy surveyor under Vincent Lowe, esquire, surveyor general, have laid out for the said Thompson a parcel of land called Thompson’s, Choice, lying in Baltimore county, on the ridge of Gunpowder river, beginning at a bounded oak, being the westermost bounds of a tract of land late laid out fbr Major Sewell, and running W. 50,0 perches, ta a, bounded oak standing by the great falls, and running N. from the said oak 320 perches, then E. 500 perches, then with a straight line to the first bounded tree,, containing and now laid out for 1000 acres of land;, more or less,” &c. The defendant then produced and read in evidence to the jury, a deed from James Thompson aforesaid, to Gabtiel Parrott, dated the 4 th of January 1693, for ‘"all that parcel or tract of land, being part of a tract of land called by the name of Thompson's Choice, lying and being upon the Great Falls of Gunpowder river, beginning,” &c. containing 200 acres more or less; also a deed from Arthur Thompson to Joseph Wilson, dated the 25th of August 1702, for “ail that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Baltimore county, on the ridge of Gunpowder river, called or known by the name of Thompsons Choice, beginning,” &c. “and formerly laid out for 1000 acres, be the same more or less, together with,” &c-. “all which said premises Were heretofore the estate and inheritance of James Thompson, late of Calvert county, gentleman, deceased, brother of the said Arthurs and the reversion/5 &c. “except, and out of this present grant always saved and forever reserved unto Gabriel Parrott, of Anne-Arundel county, merchant, 200 acres of land, part of the said 1000 acres, heretofore sold him by the said James Thompson, deceased, beginning,” &c. The defendant also produced and read to the jury, an entry in the oldest proprietary rent rolls to be found in the land office, in the following words and figures, to wit: “1000 acres, Thompson’s Choice, surveyed 12th March 1679, for James Thompson, on the ridge of Gunpowder river, at the western Founds of the land of Major Sewell.
“800 acres, part in possession of Arthur Thompson.
“200 acres, residue possessed p. George Parker, Calvert county.”
The defendant also produced and read to the jury, a deed from Joseph Wilson to Benjamin Berry, dated the 18th of October 1706, for the same land as conveyed to the said Wilson by Arthur Thompson; also a deed from Benjamin Berry to Richard Snowden, dated the 7th of October 1737, for the same land as conveyed by Wilson to the said Berry; also a deed from Richard Snovoden to John Baldwin, dated the 20th of October 1741, for 200 acres of the land conveyed by Berry to the said Snowden; also a deed from Richard Snowden <0 Thomas Gittings, dated the 16th .of April J742, for 600 acres, being the remainder of the land conveyed by Berry to the said Snowden; also a deed from John Baldwin to Stephen Onion, dated the 11th of June 1747, for 200 acres, being the land conveyed to. the said Baldwin by the said Snowden; also a deed from Gabriel Parker to Edward Reynolds, dated the 17th of December 1722, for the same land as described in the deed from James Thompson to Gabriel Par* rott; also a deed from Thomas Reynolds to Thomas Gittings, dated the 25th of December 1749, for the last above mentioned land. The defendant also produced and read to the jury, an entry in the proprietary old rent rolls, in the words and figures following, to wit; “1000 acres, Thompson’s Choice, surv. 12 March 1679, for James Thompson, on the ridge of Gunpowder river, at the western bounds of the land of Major Sewell,
“800 acres, part in poss. of Arthur Thompson.
“200 acres, the residue, possessed p, George Parker, Cal. county,”
[Alienations.]
«<800 Benjamin Bevvy irovo joseph Wilson, 18 October 1706.
“200 Edxoard Reynolds, from. Gabriel, Parker, 17 December 1722.
“800 Richard Snowden from, Benjamin, Berry, 4 October 1737.
«200 Thomas Gittings from Thomas, Reynolds21 Deer. 1749.”
Also an entry in the proprietary late rent rolls,, in the following words and figures to wit: <<1000 acres Thompson’s Choice, surveyed 12 March 1679, for Jam.es Thompson on the ridge of Gunpowder river.
{( poss. 200 .0 SO Stephen Onion
“ “ 80° . i 12 0 Thomas Sittings.
[Alienation,]
4. Thomas Lucas from Thomas Sittings 28 July 1^69.^-
The defendant also produced and read to the .jury, the will of Stephen Onion, above named, dated the 24th of August 1754, whereby he devised his real estate to his nephew Zacheus Barrett, in tail, upon his taking upon himself the name of Onion, whicli he did . The defendant also produced and read to the jury, a deed from Stephen Onion, eldest son'and heir' in tail of the said Zacheus Onion, to Thomas Bond Onion, dated the 12th of January 1790, for 200 acres, as described in the deed from Baldwin to Onion before mentioned; also a deed from Thomas Bond Onion to Harry Horsey Gough, the defendant, dated the 24th of Fe-bruáry 1790, for the last above mentioned land; also the will of Thomas Sittings, dated the 3d of November 1758, whereby he devised his part of the said tract of land called Thompson’s Choice, to his son Thomas Sittings; also the will of Thomas Sittings, son of the above named testator, dated the 8th of July 1783, whereby he devised that part of the land called Thompson’s Choice, held and claimed by him, to his sons the present holders of the sanie. The defendant álsó offered evidence to the jury to prove, that the pieces or parcels of land mentioned in and devised by the will of the said Thomas Sittings the younger, to his sons, are within the lines of the land called Thompson’s Choice aforesaid, as located by the defendant upon the plots in this cause returned. ' The defendant then offered in evidence to the jury the testimony of five living witnesses, who deposed that they have known the land located on the plots by the defendant as Thompson’s Choice for a period of forty-eight years and upwards next last passed; that during all that time it was generally deemed, reputed and considered, as Thompson’s Choice; that during the whole of that time, the whole of the said land was generally deemed, reputed and considered, as the property of the aforesaid Thomas Gittings, the elder, and the aforesaid Stephen Onion, the elder, and those respectively claiming under them; that during the whole of the •period aforesaid, the said Thomas Gittings, the elder, and those claiming under him, lived upon the said land, and cultivated a part thereof; and that as far back as they can remember, he Thomas Gittings, the elder, was so living upon and cultivating the same; and that from the first of their recollection, his said dwelling and cultivation had the appearance of having been many years settled; and that during the whole of the time aforesaid the said Stephen Onion, the elder, and those claiming under him, also held and cultivated a part of the said land. -The defendant also swore two other witnesses, who deposed that they had known the said Thomas Gittings to’ reside on and cultivate lands on the said Thompson’s Choice upwards of fifty years ago; and that at that time the place on which lie lived appeared to have been some years settled; that the said Thomas Gittings, the elder, and those claiming under him, have held and occupied the same ever since, and still do hold and occupy the ■ same; that they have known settlements and occupations upon that part of the land called Thompsons Choice, formerly heid by Stephen Onion, the elder, for the same length of time; and that the samé have ever since been held by the said Stephen Onion, and those claiming under him, and still are so held. The defendant then produced and read in evidence to the jury, the debt books of the Lord Proprietor of the Province of Maryland, wherein are charged against the holder's of land, in the then Province of Maryland, the rents due to the said Proprietor for the lands by them respectively held, (the oldest of which rent books now to be found goes no further back than the year 1754,) and by the said rent books, shewed' to the jury, that Thomas Gittings, the elder, in the year 1754, stood charged to the Lord Proprietor for the rent of 300 acres of land, part of Thompson’s Choice', and that he the said Thomas Gittings, the elder, and his son The- «s Gittivgs, the younger, continued to stand s» charged until the revolution; and that the said Stephen Onion, the elder, in the year 1754, stood charged in like manner with the rent of 200 acres, part of Thompsons Choice', and that he the said Stephen Onion, and those claiming under him, continued to stand so (;hars,'ed until the revolution. The defendant then produced John Callahan, Esquire, the register of the land office, who being duly sworn deposed, that the certificate for Thompson’s Choice is recorded among the jand records i» his ornee, hut that he has never seen* or been able to find the original certificate;, that previous to the year 1700, the register of the land office did not record (as it appears by the old record books in his office,) the payment made by the party of the composition money for lands surveyed tor such party,, or make any marginal note in the record of the certificate of such payment, whether the said certificate was made upon a warrant of res.urvey,. or whether-the said certificate, when returned, included more land than was expressed upon the warrant or war, rants upon which the same was made. That in the year 1679, and before and after as far down as the. year 1700, there are many certificates for lands surveyed for different persons, recorded in the land office, upon which it cannot be found that there is or are any patent or patents recorded in the said office^ that this certificate for the said land called Thompson’s Choice is in that situation. That it is, and always has been customary, to recite in the patent or grant, when issued, the consideration upon which the same issued, and the manner in which the composition money for the land mentioned in such grant was paid. That since the revolution, several old patents, granted between the years 1678 and 1700, and one as far back as the year 1682, which were in the hands of those holding under the patentees therein named, and which had never before been recorded in the land office, have been produced to him to be recorded, and have been recorded. That it has sometimes happened to himself, since be has been in office, that the per :son fol* whom a patent was made out, took it to the governor to procure his signature, and having obtained it, never returned the patent to him to be recorded, whereby it happened that a patent in such case did regularly issue, and yet there was and is no record of it in his office. That for near thirty years last passed, he has from time to time frequently heard a report, that one of the old record books in the Proprietary Land Office, containing the record of patents, has been lost. That the record books in the land office refer from one to the other, and that he never found a reference to any record book, which is not to be found in the office; and that he, Mr. Callahan, from thence is of opinion, no record book has been lost out of the said office, burnt or destroyed.
The register of the land office, examined as a witness us to the loss of records ofhis office, and as to certain practices which previous to the revolution.
The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that from the evidence produced in this cause, if they believe it, they may and ought to presume, that a patent regularly issued from the Lord Proprietor of Maryland to the above named James Thompson, for the said land called Thompson’s Choice.
Harper and Johnson, for the plaintiff.
Martin, (Attorney General,) Mason and Scott, for the defendant.
Dane, J. concurring. Chase, Ch. J. did not attend.
See act of March 1762, ch. 21, to change the name of Zacheus Barrett.

Opinion:
Duvall, J.
. The court are of opinion, and so direct the jury, that under all the circumstances of this case, if they find the facts above stated to be true, they may and ought to presume that a patent regularly issued to James Thompson for the tract of land called Thompson's Choice. The plaintiff excepted,
Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment of the General Court was affirmed, at November term 1803, the opinions expressed in both of the hills of exceptions having been concurred in.
\(a) Done, J. concurring. Chase, Ch. J. owing to indisposition did uot attend.