Lessee of Duncan v. Curry
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Between two applications of the 3d April 1769, that which came out óf the wheel first, and was lowest m number, has the preference. fact forthe jury of Uvo'app'lica^1 dons is most delanTin or whether ei- ’ ther applies to it. An application fheland'Is to be preferred to one -^scnpuve such descriptive application is higher m number, provided used^n'obtaining a survey.
Read the full summary
Between two applications of the 3d April 1769, that which came out óf the wheel first, and was lowest m number, has the preference. fact forthe jury of Uvo'app'lica^1 dons is most delanTin or whether ei- ’ ther applies to it. An application fheland'Is to be preferred to one -^scnpuve such descriptive application is higher m number, provided used^n'obtaining a survey. If the holder of the preferable application does not putit into handsand the holder of the dóndoe^'the" surveyor may mi thehiferioi6y application; but if before the return of survey, the holder of the plication^ac?1" counts for…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The defendants in this case moved for á new trial, on the ground of a misdirection in point of law by the judge of the Circuit Court before whom the cause was tried. It is to be regretted that the counsel, who took down the judge’s charge, have omitted a material part of it. In the course of the charge, it appears that the judge laid down some general principles with regard to warrants, applications, and surveys. They are to the following effect
1. That between two application's entered 3d April 1P69, commonly called lottery applications, because the preference was decided by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Goddard v. GloningerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Chambers v. MifflinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Mayer v. Fritsch, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1873
- Star v. BradfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831