Where a parol sale of lands has been made, money paid, and possession delivered, the contract is good between the parties; but to make it good against a bona fide purchaser, there must be clear evidence of notice to him, either actual or legal. Legal notice exists only where there is a violent presumption of actual notice. Undisturbed posses sion by the equitable owner, has generally been considered as legal notice; but it must be a clear unequivocal possession. Hence, where A bought by parol from B, a corner of B's tract, paid for it, was put into possession and had buildings erected, but at the same time had no survey of the part, or other admeasurement to reduce it to certainty, and on B's own part there was a forge, dwelling house, grist and saw mill, and buildings for the workmen, which with A's buildings, might strike the eye as one establishment, the possession of A was held not to be legal notice of his ti

FREIGHT.

See INSURANCE 3. LIEN.

FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE. See LARCENY.

GENERAL WARRANTY.

A sells several lots of land for a sum of money, payable by instalments, and covenants to convey with general warranty, on payment of the whole money. He then conveys the lots to C and D with general warranty, in trust to convey them to the vendee in fee simple, as soon as the purchase money and interest should be paid according to contract, and delivers them the obligations for the money. Held that this. conveyance is no impediment to a suit in A's name for the recovery of the money, nor to an apportionment of the purchase money, if title to some of the lots fails. Stoddart v. Smith,

GRAND-CHILDREN.

See LEGACY, 6.

355

3. A clearing of land belonging to the
commonwealth, without a bona fide
settlement, does not vest a right by
improvement.
ib.

4. Before a settler ascertains his
boundaries by warrant and survey,
he may, so far as concerns his
neighbours, ascertain his limits by
lines marked on the ground. These
lines are notice to the neighbour-
hood, and unless some particular
objection should occur to them,
must be adhered to, when the title
comes to be completed by warrant,
survey, and patent. It is therefore
competent for one of two interfering
settlers, to give evidence, that be-
fore the other had taken out a war-
rant, the former had declared his
intention to extend his claim in a
certain direction by a marked line,
of which the other had notice. Gor-
don v. Lessee of Moore,

136

and west of the Ohio &c. On the
3d of April 1792, a warrant issued,
which by mistake of the office, was
filled up with lands lying else-
where. On the 10th of April 1792,
the warrant was delivered to the de-
puty surveyor of the district, who,
perceiving the mistake, did not en-
ter the warrant in his book accord
ing to its description, but according
to the description in the application,
and surveyed on the 29th of August
following. Prior to the survey, but
subsequent to the 10th of April, B
made a bona fide actual settlement
upon the same land. Held, that the
entry made by the deputy surveyor
had no effect against third persons,
and that B was intitled to recover.
Lessee of Dawson v. Bigsby,

204

9. An actual settler cannot maintain
an ejectment for his improvement,
without an official survey, or a pri-
vate one, if by due exertion he was
unable to obtain the former. Stock-
man v. Blair,
211

INDICTMENT.

1. An indictment for erecting &c. a
mound made of logs and stones, in
the river Susquehanna, for the taking
of fish in the said river, to the great
obstruction and hindrance of the fish,
fry and spawn in passing up and
down said river, and to the common
nuisance of all the liege citizens &c.
is within the 4th section of the act of
the 9th of March 1771, which pro-
hibits the erection &c. of any wear,
rack, basket, dam, pound, or other
device or obstruction whatsoever,
whereby the fish may be obstructed
from going up said river &c. and
therefore a judgment that the fine
shall be paid to the commonwealth,
instead of going to the informer and
commissioners in that section men-
tioned, is erroneous. Werfel v. The
Commonwealth,

65

2. An indictment charged that A un-
lawfully, secretly, and maliciously,
with force and arms, broke and en-
tered at night the dwelling house of
B, with intent to disturb the peace
of the commonwealth; and after en-
tering the house, unlawfully, wil-
fully, and turbulently, made a great
noise, in disturbance of the peace of
the commonwealth, and did greatly
misbehave in the said dwelling
house, and did greatly frighten
and alarm the wife of the said B,
whereby she miscarried &c. Held,
that the offence laid was indictable
as a misdemeanour. Quare whether
the indictment could be supported
as describing a forcible entry. Com-
monwealth v. Taylor,
277

If the decree of an Orphan's Court,
ordering the real estate of an intes-
tate at the valuation, to his oldest
son, be erroneous, a minor is not
concluded by his own, or his guar-
dian's acceptance of the sum at
which his interest in the estate is
valued, provided as soon as practi-
cable after his arriving at lawful
age, he takes the necesary steps to
question the proceeding. He is not
concluded, though he accepted the
purpart after he came of age, if he
was then ignorant of the wrong
done to him. Elliot v. Elliot,

INFORMATION.

1

When leave is granted to file an in-
formation in the nature of a quo
warranto, the defendants must be
summoned by a venire, or subpæna;
and if they fail to appear, must be
brought in by distringas or attach-
ment. An appearance upon the pre-
vious rule to show cause, does not

In an action of replevin, if an issue
be joined upon rent in arrear, and
there is any thing to show the
amount of rent claimed, this, and
not the damages laid by the plain-
tiff in his declaration, will settle the
jurisdiction of the Court. But where
the jurisdiction depends on the
amount in controversy, there is no-
thing to decide the question, in ac-
tions sounding merely in tort, but
the damages laid in the declaration.
Ancora v. Burns,

522

3. Unless it appears by the record of
the Quarter Sessions that that
Court had not jurisdiction, the Su
preme Court will presume that it
had. Baltimore Turnpike case, 481

INSOLVENT DEBTOR.

See SUPREME COURT 1.

INSURANCE.

1. An insurance was effected on goods
at and from Philadelphia to Antwerp,
with an agreement by the assured
not to abandon in case of capture or
detention in less than sixty days
after notice thereof, and with the
usual clause against illicit or prohi-
bited trade. The ship sailed on the
13th of September 1807, was cap-