Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Kirk

V.

Smith.

1824. others within that territory, but left such controversy to be decided between the parties, as if the law had never been passed. The act is simply an adjustment between Penn and the Commonwealth. It refers to a fact of public notoriety, as marking the lines of division between them. That fact is. a survey, duly made and returned into the land office, before the 4th of July, 1776. The survey must be understood as one entire thing, describing the particular tract of country surveyed, and the words "duly made," mean, made according to the forms prescribed by law or usage. It was very well known, that, within these surveys, some lands were sold, and some were not sold. On all which were sold, quit-reats were received, and on some of them, the purchase money was still due. With the land, if not sold, with the quit-rents and purchase money, if sold, the Legislature, as has been already shown, declares its purpose not to interfere. There is nothing in the language, nor is there any thing in the character of the transaction, which would lead to the opinion that the Legislature intended to discriminate between the different rights of the proprietaries within the manors. The hand of government is not laid upon the manors, and all the rights of the proprietaries within those boundaries, whether to land, purchase money, or quit-rents, remain untouched. There can be no conceivable reason for supposing, that the Legislature meant to inquire into the dates of the warrants evidencing the sale of lands, while the right to sell was acknowledged, and to discharge. one contrnet of sale within the untouched bounda

[ocr errors]

Kirk

ry, while another remained valid. The words 1824. make no such distinction, and we can perceive nothing in the nature of the property which will justify the Court in making it.

If we trace these words, "manors," and "proprietary tenths," to their first use, we shall find reason to confirm, not to change, the sense in which we suppose them to have been used in the act of 1779.

By the 19th section of the charter, license is granted to William Penn, and his heirs, "to erect any parcels of land, within the province aforesaid, into manors." There is no restriction on this power, which confines its exercise to lands which are vacant at the time. There was, then, no want of power in Penn to comprehend within a manor lands which were actually sold. The rights of the purchaser, the tenure by which he held his property, could not be changed, nor would they be changed, by including his land within the survey of a

manor.

The proprietary tenths originate in the "conditions or concessions agreed on between William Penn and certain adventurers and purchasers, on the 11th of July, 1681. The 9th condition, or concession, is: "In every 100,000 acres, the governor and proprietary, by lot, reserveth ten tr himself, which shall lie but in one place."

Now, it is very apparent that, supposing this, stipulation to be a fundamental law, and to enure to the benefit of all the inhabitants, it can only restrain the proprietary from reserving more than ten out of every 100,000 acres of land, and compel him to lay it off in one body. If within any survey

V.

Smith.

1824.

Kirk

V.

Smith.

others within that territory, but left such contro
versy to be decided between the parties, as if the
law had never been passed. The act is simply an
adjustment between Penn and the Commonwealth.
It refers to a fact of public notoriety, as marking
the lines of division between them. That fact is.
a survey, duly made and returned into the land
office, before the 4th of July, 1776.
The survey
must be understood as one entire thing, describing
the particular tract of country surveyed, and the
words "duly made,” mean, made according to the
forms prescribed by law or usage. It was very
well known, that, within these surveys, some lands
were sold, and some were not sold. On all which
were sold, quit-reats were received, and on some
of them, the purchase money was still due. With
the land, if not sold, with the quit-rents and pur-
chase money, if sold, the Legislature, as has been
already shown, declares its purpose not to inter-
fere. There is nothing in the language, nor is
there any thing in the character of the transaction,
which would lead to the opinion that the Legisla-
ture intended to discriminate between the differ-
ent rights of the proprietaries within the manors.
The hand of government is not laid upon the ma-
nors, and all the rights of the proprietaries within
those boundaries, whether to land, purchase money,
or quit-ronts, remain untouched. There can be
no conceivable reason for supposing, that the Lc-
gislature meant to inquire into the dates of the
warrants evidencing the sale of lands, while the
right to sell was acknowledged, and to discharge
one contraet of sale within the untouched bounda-

Kirk

V.

Smith.

evidence given in the cause, that an agreement 1824. was entered into, in 1736, between the proprietary and a number of the inhabitants, by which he engaged to make them titles for certain specified quantities of land in their possession, on the common terms. This agreement is stated to have been afterwards carried into execution. The contract, as stated, contains unequivocal proof of having been made under the idea that the survey of 1722 was valid, that it related to lands within the lines of that survey, and that the land within its lines was considered as a manor. That survey may not have been attended with those circumstances which would bring it within the saving of the act of 1779, and, certainly, in this cause, is not to be considered as a valid survey of a manor. It was, nevertheless, believed, in 1736, by the parties to this contract, to be a manor; and those proceedings which took place respecting lands within it, are, consequently, such as might take place respecting lands within a menor. We find sales of land made to fifty-two persons, upon the common terms, and grants made to them according to contract. When the final survey was made, comprehending these lands as being part of the manor of Springetsbury, were they less a part of that manor because they were granted as a part of it before that survey was made? When, in 1779, the Legislature excepted from confiscation the quit-rents "reserved out of the said proprietary tenths or manors," is it credible that they intended to create a distinction, never heard of before, between the quit-rents on lands lying.

1824. within the lines of the manor, and sold as part of the manor, to depend on the terms or the time of the grant?

Kirk

V.

Smith.

The defendants in the Circuit Court gave in evidence, fifteen instances of lands lying within the manor being settled for on the common terms. Were these lands excluded from the manor by being so settled for? Did the Legislature of 1779, when about to save for the proprietaries the quit-rents reserved out of manors or proprietary tenths, or out of land commonly called and known by the name of manors or proprietary tenths, which were duly surveyed and rcturned into the land office, on or before the 4th of July, 1776, fix its mind on the survey to which reference is made, or on the dates and terms of the grants made for lands within the survey? If on the survey, then the language expresses the intention; if some other distinction was designed, it is strange that no words were inserted pointing to such distinction. The Legislature intended to confiscate the estates of the proprietaries in part, and in part only. The line of partition between the Commonwealth and the Penn family, was to be drawn. It was the province of wisdom and of justice to make this line a plain one. It was proper that the Commonwealth, and Penn, and the people of Pennsylvania, should be able distinctly to discern it. If the lines of the manors, as surveyed and returned in the land office, before the 4th of July, 1776, constitute the dividing lines between the parties, they are plainly and distinctly drawn. If some

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »