Hogland's heirs v. Shepherd
Hogland's heirs v. Shepherd
Opinion of the Court
OPINION of the Court, by
This
Is a contest for land held under adversary titles obtained from the commonwealth of Virginia. Hogland was complainant in the court below, and his claim must be first investigated. His entry and those on which it depends are as follows, to wit:
“ Cornelius Hogland enters 1000 acres upon two treasury warrants, on a branch, on.the south side of the Rolling Fork, about 4 1-2 miles above the preceding entry, to include three improvements, Joseph Anderson’s, Samuel Humphreys’s, and Tilmer Camphor’s, dated July 7th, 1780.” It appears and seems to be conceded, that the entry here alluded to is, “ Charles Huff enters 1000 acres upon a treasury warrant, on the north side of the Rolling Fork, 11-2 mile above the last entry, to include an improvement of Randolph Speires,” dated July 7th, 1780. It also appears and seems to be conceded, that the entry here alluded to is, “ John Kenney enters 1062 acres upon two treasury warrants, on the south side of the Rolling Fork, adjoining all around John Philips’s entry of 200 acres,” dated July 7th, 1780. And it further appears and seems to be conceded, that the entry here intended is, “ John Philips, assignee, &c. enters 200 acres upon a military warrant, on the Rolling Fork of Salt River, to include an improvement of John Bentley’s, on the opposite side from the said Bentley’s preemption,” dated June 23d, 1780.
This last entry ought to be first considered ; because it is obvious, that on it, all the other entries which have been recited, do materially depend. The Rolling Fork of Salt River, is proven, and must be presumed, to have been well known at the time this entry was made ; but John Bentley’s pre-emption entry is not exhibited. Indeed, from the depositions, it is probable that such a. claim did not exist ; and from the other calls in Philips’s entry it was impossible for other adventurers to ascertain what part of this extensive water course was intended. This defect alone must be fatal to the complainant’s entry, unless it contains calls for other objects so circumstanced that they could have been found with certainty, and by them the precise form and situation of the land he intended to have appropriated could be de
Hugh. 99-Har. 411.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.