Attorney-General v. Grantees under the act of April 1792
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
On the 2d of April 1802, an act of the general assembly was passed, entitled “ An act to settle the controversies arising from contending claims to land, within that part of the territory of this commonwealth north and west of the rivers Ohio and Allegheny and Conewango creek” (P. L. 153), by which the judges of the supreme court were directed to devise an issue, for trying the following questions, at Sunbury, in Northumberland county:. 1st. Are warrants heretofore granted…
Read the full summary
On the 2d of April 1802, an act of the general assembly was passed, entitled “ An act to settle the controversies arising from contending claims to land, within that part of the territory of this commonwealth north and west of the rivers Ohio and Allegheny and Conewango creek” (P. L. 153), by which the judges of the supreme court were directed to devise an issue, for trying the following questions, at Sunbury, in Northumberland county:. 1st. Are warrants heretofore granted under the act of the 3d of April 1792, valid and effectual in law, against this commonwealth, so as to bar this…
1Opinion of the Court
*Yrates, Justice.
— Tkat the decision of the court and jury on the present feigned issue should “settle the controversies arising from contending claims to lands north and west of the rivers Ohio and Allegheny and Oonewango creek,” is an event devoutly to be wished for by every good citizen. “ It is indispensably necessary that the peace of that part of the state should be preserved, and complete justice done to all parties interested, as effectually as possible.” (Close of Preamble to the Act of 2d of April 1802, p. 155.) We have no hesitation in declaring, that we are not without our fears,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pollard v. ShafferSupreme Court of the United States · 1787
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bussy v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1800