The Law of Warrants, Entries, Surveys and Patents, in the Virginia Military District in Ohio; With Copious References to the Kentucky Decisions

The Law of Warrants, Entries, Surveys and Patents, in the Virginia Military District in Ohio; With Copious References to the Kentucky Decisions

By (author) 

List price: US$13.46

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1850 edition. Excerpt: ... was held to embrace both sides of the stream, such being the intention of the locator.' If the locator intends that his entry should be surveyed in a square, but calls to include an improvement, which if included would cause his survey to embrace too great a quantity of land, the improvement cannot be rejected, but the lines must be drawn to include the improvement, without regard to figure.' A call for a tree as marked with the locator's name, when in fact only the initials were cut, does not mislead if the remaining calls are sufficient.5 But a call to include a tree, cannot be disregarded, when there is no other call to fix the exact position of the entry." A call ' Bodley v. Taylor, 6 Cranch, 191; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 343. 2 Smitlrv. Harrow, 1 Bibb.. 98. If you reject certain unerring ' calls, as course and distance, which ought to have been a certain guide to one intending to locate in the neighborhood, the remaining calls ought to be notorious and discoverable, as affording equal information to other locators, Bigan, et al, v. Owings, Wallace Hughes, 199. "' Bukley v. Gillmore, 12 Ohio, 77. ' Patterson v. Bradford. Hardin, 104. 5 Manifee v. Conn, 2 Bibb., 625. Kincade v. Blythe, 2 Bibb., 479. for an unmarked tree, of a kind abundant in the neighborhood, may be considered as immaterial, if the entry is otherwise sufliciently described.' p A locator calling to join a claim, shall not be intended to interfere with it. Thus, the court rejected a call to run north, because it produced a repugnance by making the entry interfere with a location called for. They decided that the locator intended to say " south," but said "north," by mistake.' That...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 42 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 2mm | 95g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236938836
  • 9781236938831