Wolcott v. Swan
Wolcott v. Swan
Opinion of the Court
The Court of Chancery delivered the following opinion: “ That, from the agreement of June, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, between the defendant Alexander Wolcott, David Booth, for himself, and as attorney for several other people, and Austin Nichols of the one part, and Alexander Smyth of the other part, the defendant Alexander Wolcott and his associates, derived no right to the land in controversy; because the defendant Alexander Smyth had no such right, but it was in the Commonwealth until it should be regularly appropriated. That, in the Land-Office treasury-warrants, which authorised the surveying and laying off land for the plaintiff James Swan, the words, “this warrant is executed II. Smyth, S. R. C.” were a legal entry of the land in controversy, for the benefit of that plaintiff, and gave to him an equitable title against the Commonwealth, and every posterior claimant under it, in that identical land; and that the surveyor could not transfer that right, nor could the defendant Alexander Smyth, transfer it, except as to his own interest in one-sixth part of the said land, without authority from his constituents. The agreement between him and the plaintiff Alexander M’Rae, of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, did not in terms confer that authority, nor is such authority implied in, nor doth it flow from, the nature of the agent’s office, as the defendant’s counsel 'insisted: And, therefore, the Court doth adjudge, order, and decree, that the defendant Alexander Wolcott, do assign to the plaintiff James Swan, all that defendant’s right and title in and to three hundred thousand acres of land, part of the six hundred and fifty thousand acres of land, certified to have been surveyed for him, and completed the seventeenth day of December, one thousand seven hun
This Court made the following decree: “This day came the parties by their counsel, and the Court having maturely considered the transcript of the record and the arguments of the counsel, is of opinion, that so much of the decree aforesaid, as directs the appellant to assign to the appellee, James Swan, all the appellant’s right and title to the lands in the county of Russell, in the decree mentioned, before the appellees pay to the appellant the money advanced by him for Surveyor’s and Register’s fees on account of the said land, is erroneous: And that the said decree is also erroneous,, in not directing the appellees, on receiving the assignment aforesaid, to release and discharge Alexander Smyth, in the proceedings named, from all covenants and agreements on his part, contained in the articles entered into by him with the appellee, Alexander MS Rae, on the fourteenth of September, 1795, referred to in the decree, so far as the said articles relate to the quantity, title, soil, or description of the lands covenanted to be located and surveyed for the appellees, by the said
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.