Prout v. Bard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Indiana county. This was an ejectment in which William Prout and Heth F. Camp, plaintiffs in error, were plaintiffs below, and Richard Bard was defendant, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Indiana county. This was an ejectment in which William Prout and Heth F. Camp, plaintiffs in error, were plaintiffs below, and Richard Bard was defendant, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs showed a warrant granted to John Nicholson on the 5th of March 1793, and numbered 3744 for 1000 acres of land within the last purchase from the Indians, east of the Allegheny river; and a survey upon that warrant on the 23d of August 1794, to John Nicholson for 1020 acres at the canoe place, adjoining the old purchase line in district No.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
We think the language of the fifteenth section of the act of April 8, 1785, is too strong to be got over by any construction that would render its provisions merely directory, and make a survey by a deputy surveyor of one district within the precincts of another district voidable but not void. For the act of 17S5, in its whole intent and objects, looks to a new mode of granting, surveying and disposing of the lands acquired by the commonwealth in 1784, by the treaty of fort M’Intosh, commonly called the new purchase. In relation to the mode…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lessee of Harris v. MonksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- Smith v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1793
- M'Namara v. ShorbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Creek v. MoonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1793