Simpson v. Register of the Land Office

2 Ky. 218, 1 Sneed 218, 1803 Ky. LEXIS 9
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMay 20, 1803
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 2 Ky. 218 (Simpson v. Register of the Land Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Simpson v. Register of the Land Office, 2 Ky. 218, 1 Sneed 218, 1803 Ky. LEXIS 9 (Ky. Ct. App. 1803).

Opinion

The point to be decided, on this application, is highly important as a precedent, viz: Had the entry on which the survey was made become void ? To ascertain this point, recourse must be had to all the acts of assembly which have an immediate relation to it. In [219]*219the act of 1779, “for establishing a land office,” &e. (Sec. 3), are the following clauses: “Every surveyor shall, at the time of making entries for persons not being inhabitants of his county, appoint a time for surveying their land, and give notice thereof in writing to the person making the same.” “Every chief surveyor shall proceed ydth all practicable dispatch, to survey all lands entered for in his office, and shall, if the party live within his county, either give personal notice of the time at which he will attend to make such survey, or shall publish such notice by fixing an advertisement thereof on the door of the court-house of the county, on two several court days, which time so appointed shall be at least one pnonth after personal notice given, or after the second advertisement so published; and if the surveyor shall accordingly attend, and the party, or some one for him shall fail to appear at the time with proper chain carriers, and a person to mark the lines if necessary, his entry shall become void, and the land thereafter subject to the entry of any other person, and the surveyor shall return him the warrant, which may, notwithstanding, be located anew upon any waste or unappropriated lands, or again upon the same lands, where it hath not, in the mean time, been entered for by some other person. On these clauses it is only necessary to observe, that for several years after opening a land office by the State of Yirginia, they specify the only cases (except a withdrawal by the owner) in which an entry could have become void; and it is believed, that, from their passage until this day, there has not been a single instance of any such notices as were authorized by these clauses, having been given in Kentucky. But an act which passed in 1784, “concerning entries and surveys,” &c., further provided, “that all entries made in the county surveyor’s books on the western waters, other than the entries made by virtue of officers’ and soldiers’ claims for military services, before the passing of this act, shall be surveyed, and the surveys thereof returned as the law directs, on or before the first day of February, 1786; and that all future entries on the said waters shall be in like manner surveyed and returned within one year after the date of every such entry. If any entry shall not be surveyed and returned within the terms aforesaid, it shall be lawful for any person to enter for and locate the said lands, in like manner as if such prior entry had not been made.” On this act the reflection unavoidably arises, that as to the owners of those entries which' had been made previous to its passage, it was rigorous and unjust [220]*220in the extreme, and was a wide departure from that liberality and justice for which the legislature of Yirginia has ever been celebrated. In this act no exception was made in favor of infants, feme coverts, captives, nor those who were insane, or in foreign countries. Only about twelve months were allowed; during which, multitudes of other owners of entries must have remained ignorant of the limitation, and within which it was impossible for the surveyors, with the assistance of all the deputies they could have engaged, to have accomplished the business; not to say, that in this country the danger from the Indians alone rendered it impossible. These considerations, it may be presumed, induced a repeal of this act in 1785, which left all entries for land, as if it had never existed; and in lieu thereof it was then enacted, “That immediately after the first day of January, 1787, the principal surveyor of every county on the western waters shall, and he is hereby required to give notice to all persons claiming land by entry within his county, or to their agents, attorneys, or other persons acting in their behalf, either personally, or by affixing the same at the court-house door, or other usual place of holding the courts of the said county, on two several court days, that he will proceed by himself, or one of his deputies, to survey the lands therein mentioned, on a certain day which he shall appoint, which day so appointed shall be one month, at the least, after the notice given, on the last time of advertising the same; and if any person, or his agent or attorney, as aforesaid, shall fail or neglect to attend the surveyor, with chain carriers, and a person to mark the lines as required by law, on the day appointed for that purpose, such entry shall become void, and the land liable to be again entered for by any person holding a land warrant; and the surveyor shall return the warrant on which such entry was made, to the person owning the same, or his agent, which may, nevertheless be located on any waste or unappropriated lands, or on the same lands, if not already taken by some other warrant. And the owners of entries already made, shall, on or before the said first day of January, appoint some person within the county where the lands lie, as their agent or attorney, who shall give notice of such appointment to the surveyor, within one month thereafter, or on failure thereof, his entry shall become void. Provided, that nothing in this or any other '-act, shall extend to forfeit or make void any entry claimed by infants, or prisoners in captivity, but that all such persons shall have three years, after their several disabilities are removed, to [221]*221complete the same,” &c. By a clause of this act, the owners of all entries, which had been made prior to its passage, were required to appoint agents or attorneys within the counties where the lands lay. But the words, all entries, do certainly exceed the intentions of the legislature; for it would be unnecessary and absurd to compel the owner of an entry to appoint an agent or attorney in the county where he resided himself. Indeed, the whole of this clause is redundant and partial. The act would have fully accomplished the intentions of the legislature, by declaring that all entries should become void, if the owners themselves, or attorneys, failed to attend the surveyor when notified to do so, by advertisement. The legislature of Yirginia were not, however, restrained by their constitution from passing this act; and, therefore, however partial and unjust it may be in some of its parts, it must have its operation. By three acts of Yirginia, one of 1786, another of 1788, and another of 1790; and by two acts of Kentucky, one of 1792, and the other of 1793, the time for appointing agents or attorneys, and giving notice thereof to the surveyors, as required by the act of 1785, was prolonged unto the first day of January, 1796, and concerning the last five acts alluded to, it ought to be noted, that they are only amendatory of the act of 1785, and only respect entries which had been made prior to its passage; and there is no other act requiring the owners of subsequent entries to appoint agents or attorneys. December 15, 1795, an act passed, giving further time to make surveys,” &c., which is in these words,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGoldrick v. State
21 S.W.2d 390 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1929)
Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Owen
11 Tenn. App. 19 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1929)
Louisville Nashville R.R. Co. v. Hutcherson
8 Tenn. App. 235 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1928)
Green v. State
147 Tenn. 299 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1922)
L. & N. R. R. v. Bohan
116 Tenn. 271 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
McGregor v. Gill
114 Tenn. 521 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1904)
Railroad v. Kuhn
107 Tenn. 106 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1901)
Boss v. Providence & Worcester Railroad
1 A. 9 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1885)
Cartwright v. State
80 Tenn. 620 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1883)
Lowry v. State
80 Tenn. 142 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1883)
State v. Collie
3 Shan. Cas. 803 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1878)
Draper v. State
63 Tenn. 246 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Ky. 218, 1 Sneed 218, 1803 Ky. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-register-of-the-land-office-kyctapp-1803.