Lee v. Tapscott
Court of Appeals of Virginia
This was an appeal from the District Court of Fredericksburg-. It was an ejectment brought by the lessor of the appellee against the appellant.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the District Court of Fredericksburg-. It was an ejectment brought by the lessor of the appellee against the appellant. At the trial, the plaintiff in support of his title, offered in evidence a writing in the following words to wit: 1 ‘To all Sec. whereas &c. now know ye, that I the said Samuel Mathews Esq. do with consent of the council of state accordingly give and grant unto Henry Roach 1700 acres of land, situated and being in the county of Westmoreland, bounded &c. [and so describing the bounds] 8S0 acres part thereof, being formerly granted unto the said Henry…
1Opinion of the CourtCarrington, J.
The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that it was sufficient to convey the land. The case of Birch v. Alexander (ante vol. 1, p. 34) is expressly in point upon this question.
The next objection was to the authenticity of the…
2Cases cited444 opinions
- Yesler v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1890
- Eisenbach v. HatfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Kerr v. LunsfordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- State v. CainWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Ah Lim v. Territory of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1890
439 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.