Walls' Lessee v. M'gee

Superior Court of Delaware

Walls' Lessee v. M'gee

4 Del. 108

DecidedJuly 5, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Del. 108 (Walls' Lessee v. M'gee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walls' Lessee v. M'gee, 4 Del. 108 (Del. Ct. App. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

Booth, Chief Justice,

charged the jury —that as a general principle, acts of limitation will not run against the State : nor can there be an adverse possession, strictly speaking, against the State such as can be against an individual; yet there are cases where from length of possession—rightful possession—a presumption will arise against the king, or against the State, to quiet the title. The most solemn papers have been presumed after a great lapse of time: grants; charters : even acts of parliament, have been presumed. So in this country grants and patents from the State are presumed after a great lapse of time in conformity with lawful possession.

If Robert Lacey had a warrant one hundred and three years ago; was in possession eighty-eight years ago; located sixty-seven years ago; it is a case where the jury ought to presume a patent from the State. Robert Lacey’s entry was lawful, being under a warrant and survey, and being so in possession it is a fair presumption, after eighty-eight years, that the State perfected his title by a patent. This patent being presumed, the title is out of the State; and the subsequent patent to Prettyman Walls conveyed no title. And that is in conformity with the act of 1793, which gives the same effect to these ancient titles by warrant and survey without patent. As to the mutilation of the record, if recent, it cannot divest the title previously vested by it.

The defendant’s possession would be good against individual claimants, but thirty years possession is not sufficient against the State; yet the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendants; he must show a title in himself, which he has not done, unless the State’s grant to him was sufficient to convey a title, and this could not be if sufficient is proved from which the jury will presume a previous grant from the State to Robert Lacey.

Verdict for defendants,

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

Booth, Chief Justice,

charged the jury —that as a general principle, acts of limitation will not run against the State : nor can there be an adverse possession, strictly speaking, against the State such as can be against an individual; yet there are cases where from length of possession—rightful possession—a presumption will arise against the king, or against the State, to quiet the title. The most solemn papers have been presumed after a great lapse of time: grants; charters : even acts of parliament, have been presumed. So in this country grants and patents from the State are presumed after a great lapse of time in conformity with lawful possession.

If Robert Lacey had a warrant one hundred and three years ago; was in possession eighty-eight years ago; located sixty-seven years ago; it is a case where the jury ought to presume a patent from the State. Robert Lacey’s entry was lawful, being under a warrant and survey, and being so in possession it is a fair presumption, after eighty-eight years, that the State perfected his title by a patent. This patent being presumed, the title is out of the State; and the subsequent patent to Prettyman Walls conveyed no title. And that is in conformity with the act of 1793, which gives the same effect to these ancient titles by warrant and survey without patent. As to the mutilation of the record, if recent, it cannot divest the title previously vested by it.

The defendant’s possession would be good against individual claimants, but thirty years possession is not sufficient against the State; yet the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendants; he must show a title in himself, which he has not done, unless the State’s grant to him was sufficient to convey a title, and this could not be if sufficient is proved from which the jury will presume a previous grant from the State to Robert Lacey.

Verdict for defendants,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Del. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-lessee-v-mgee-delsuperct-1844.