Jackson v. Honeycut
Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity
Equity. Pro confesso.—The plaintiff states, that on the 21st of October, 1783, an entry was made in John Armstrong’s office, no. 91, for 200 acres, upon which a warrant issued on the 7th of June, 1784, which the plaintiff purchased, had the same assigned on the 1st February 1788, had it surveyed, and on the 18th of May, 1789, obtained a grant.
Read the full summary
Equity. Pro confesso.—The plaintiff states, that on the 21st of October, 1783, an entry was made in John Armstrong’s office, no. 91, for 200 acres, upon which a warrant issued on the 7th of June, 1784, which the plaintiff purchased, had the same assigned on the 1st February 1788, had it surveyed, and on the 18th of May, 1789, obtained a grant. It is also stated, that this land lies south-west of the line from the mouth of Cloud’s creek to the Chimney top-mountain commonly called Brown’s line. The defendant on the 24th of November 1778, entered the same land in one of the counties, and during…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. Campbell and Overton (White Judge, absent)
agreeably to the former practice of this court, a bill taken pro confesso is viewed as true in relation to all matters of fact. *
If an improvement had been made by the defendant, during the interval between the passing the act of 1777 Ird. p. 292, and the act of 1778, Ird. p. 351, the case might deserve some consideration, supposing the defendant not to have been attached to the British ; But taking the bill as true, as to matters of fact, the case admits of no doubt. The 5th section of the act of 1778, does expressly forbid any entries…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Polk's Lessee v. WendellSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Danforth v. WearSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Cobb's Heirs v. Conway's HeirsTennessee Supreme Court · 1816