Minutes of the Board of Property, 1894

Created: Wednesday, 03 December 2008 Last Updated: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 Written by Nathan Zipfel Print Email
MINUTES

 

OF THE

 

BOARD OF PROPERTY

 

AND OTHER REFERENCES

 

TO

 

LANDS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

 

INCLUDING

 

 

PROPRIETARY (OLD) RIGHTS.

 

_______

 

 

EDITED BY

 

WILLIAM HENRY EGLE, M. D.

______

 

 

HARRISBURG:

CLARENCE M. BUSCH, STATE PRINTER.

1894.

 

 

 

 

            [Owing to the fact that some of the Minute Books of the Board of Property are not to be found in the Land Department, the disconnected record will be accounted for.  We give such transcripts from the Caveat Books, however, as may possibly supply the hiatus in the proceedings of that office.  So important are these that their incompleteness is to be regretted.  A portion of the Record of “Old Rights” is also given.]

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF PROPERTY

 

___________

 

 

At a Meeting at the surveyor Generals the 3d Jan’y, 1792.

 

Present

 

 
   

 

 

            Daniel Broadhead, Esq., Surv. Gen’l    

            Francis Johnston, Esq., Rec’r Gen’l             of the Land Office.

            David Kennedy, Esq., Secretary

            Matthew Irwin, Esq., Master of the Rolls.

 

 

Robert Smith

    v.

George Johnston

 

   The said Parties appearing mutually submitted their dispute to the Board having no Caveat or Citation, And they being heard and their Warrants & Papers Examined, it appears that Johnston hath a Warrant dw’d in May, 1791, and that Smith hath one in November in the same Year for the Land in contest, And that

There is no Imp’t on it, of such consequence as can affect the priority of Johnstons Warrant Therefore Ordered that the Survey of 45 Acres shall be returned and accepted for Johnston on his said Warrant.

 

 

James Martin, Esq.

            v.

Michael Smier.

 

   This Case having been postponed from the third day of October last to this time because the Drafft from the Deputy Surveyor agreeable to the Order of the Board the first Monday in December, 1790, had not been made, And now no proof being made that Martin was served with a Copy of this Minute of the third October last, nor is the Draught or Plott yet made, Therefore this Case is further post’d to the first Monday in December next against which time the Deputy Surveyor is directed to furnish the Board with the Drafft A Copy of this Minute is to be given Martin thirty days at least before the said first Monday in December next.

 

1 – 2 – 3D Ser.

 

 

2                                                                    MINUTES OF

 

Alexander wells

      v.

David Reynolds

& Thomas Bays.

      After hearing the Parties a Judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of Reynolds & Bays for 300 Acres incl’g their Improvements was produced and a Survey of 307 ¼ Acres made on Reynolds Warrant being examined It is Ordered that the 7 ¼ Acres which is the Survey more than recovered by said Judgment shall be cutt off from the same Survey by a line to be run parallel to the Line S. 20 degrees W. 508 perches as dotted on a Draught Certified by Matthew Ritchie now before the Board.

 

John Hollingshead

      v.

William Morris in

right of Jonathan

     Morris.

      This Case is postponed to the first Monday in June next again which time the Deputy Sur’r of the District is directed by making a Resurvey of Morris’s land fully to ascer’n ye qt. Of his Survey & the quantity shall be less than his Warrant expresses, to fill it up on that part which Mr. Galbreath deposes he was required by Morris to take into his Survey and to make a return again the said first Monday in June denoting the Claim of Hollingshead.

   Mr. Henry Dougherty produced to the Board a Copy of a Record of the Supreme Court whereby it appears that Jas. Hughs became nonsuited in an Action between him and said Dougherty relating to a Tract of Land on Susquehanna above Lycoming for which they both have pre-emption Warrants, Ordered that the Surveyor General direct a Survey to be made on Doughertys Warr’t by some Surveyor and returned to the Board the first Monday in April next when Mr. Hughs may be heard if he thinks proper and if said Hughs shew not Cause to the contrary a Patent may issue to Dougherty A Copy of this Minute to be given to Hughs at least Thirty days before that time.

 

Robert Clark

      v.

Christian Stoner.

      The Report of Adam Orth, Martin Brandt and Jonath’n McClure to whom this dispute was referred on the 7th day of November last; was read, But as the same does not determine to which party the Lands in contest ought to belong they are desired to make another Report declaring in whom the right of the land is vested

 

 

      BOARD OF PROPERTY             3

 

John Carmichael

v.                                                                  On Caveat.

       John Clark

   On hearing Colo.                  (in behalf of Clark) and the said John Carmichael and examining their Papers, it appears that John Carmichael, jun’r and John Carmich’l, Sen’r on the same day obtained Warrants that of John Carmichael, Sen’r for 400 Acres and that of John the younger for 200 Acres, That the said John the Elder falling in debt the Sheriff of the said County made Sale as well of the said John, Jun’r as that of that of John, Sen’r.  And Mr.        produced a Copy of a Record of a Deed from John Carmichael, Junior to his Father dated 5 December, 1785, and it being suggested by John Carmichael, jr., that the said Deed was not made by him and from circumstances it seems likely it was not or at least it is doubtful, Therefore it is thought proper to postpone this Case to the first Monday in December next in order that the original of the said Deed may be produced for an Examination of Jacob Bury & Wm. Strong may be had and laid before the Board.

 

William Wilson

v.                                          On Caveat.

Isaac Israel or

    Israelow.

    William Wilson alledging on his Caveat upon Warrant to Israels the Board examined their Warrants and find that Israels is the prior one and therefore his allegations not being supported his Caveat is dismissed.

 

Nathan Dailey

v.                                          On Caveat.

James McDowell.

    On hearing Abraham Smith, Esq., on behalf of McDowell and examining his Papers and those of Dailey transmitted to the Board, it appears that McDowell ent’d an App’n for three hundred Acres and joining the Fallen Timber Bottom that before any Survey was made on the said Application a Certain Martin Humble had settled on the Land, That said McDowell and Humble entered into an agreement by a Bond or instrument in writing dated the 20 day of Novem. 1771, now produced amongst McDowells Papers, whereby McDowell in consideration of Twenty Pounds to be paid him and performing certain other matters therein expressed, and other conditions, was to transfer his right to Humble which agreement is also signified in a Letter from McDowell to the Secretary & Humble assigned or gave up his claim in possession many years and made considerable Imp’ts thereon.  The Board are of

 

 

4                                          MINUTES OF

 

Opinion that on Daileys payment of the money according to the said agreement with lawful Interest he shall have a Patent, and that in the settlement of the Account on the said Application, he shall be allowed the money paid on a New Warrant which Dailey took out for the same land.

            The Honble Thomas Kennedy, Esq., laid before the Board a Survey made by James Harris Deputy Surveyor on an Application No. 1195 of One John Crozier, whose right to one Moiety being 108 Acres 62 perches became vested in John Scouler who it is suggested took out a Warrant for the same dated 6 February, 1789,  Locat’d as follows, viz, 150 including an Imp’t adjoining land of _______.

            And a Survey is returned of the said Tract Survey’d on the said Application in two Divisions of 108 Acres 62 perches each.  And the said Kennedy desired a Settlement of his Account allowing him the money paid on his said Scoulers Warrant, The Board on considering this Case are of Opinion that the Deputy Surveyor ought to Certify to the Surveyor General whether the said Warrant is Located on the same place, Surveyed and returned as Scoulers part of the land claimed on Croziers Application in Order that such allowance may be made on the Settlement on the Account.

 

Henry Taylor

v.                                          On Caveat.

Levi Hollingsworth.

            Henry Taylor being duly notified and not attending Levi Hollingsworth was heard exparte, And the Survey Depositions produced and a minute of the Board 16 Decem. 1790 examined whereon it appears that at that time the said Henry Taylor producing to the Board a Copy of the record of the Supreme Court on a trial in ejectment between said Taylor and Hollingsworth in the same Court, Whereby said Taylor recovered a part of the Land claimed by Hollingsworth in right of Richard Yeates, the Caveat depending between the said parties was dismissed and Taylor allowed a Patent for the part of Yeates’ Survey recovered with which the other land is included in a Survey made on Warrant to John Taylor, That the said Henry Taylor by some means procured a Survey of 287 A’s 128 ps. To be returned on Mary McDowells Application No. 3599 on part of said Survey of Yeates and without any contest or knowledge of Mr. Hollingsworth obtained a Patent for the same which comprehends part of said Henry Taylor’s other Land, That the said Henry Taylor neither on the said Trial in Ejectment nor at the Board set up Claim to any part of Yeates Survey more than what was recovered.  And further that on examination of the Description of Mary Mc-

 

BOARD OF PROPERTY.           5

 

Dowells Location the same ought to join Nathan McDowells Survey which it cannot do without interfering with other Surveys.  On the whole, however averse the Board are in common to grant Patents for Lands all ready Patented, Yet taking into Consideration the circumstances of the Case it is thought proper to allow Mr. Hollingsworth a Patent for such part of Yeates Survey as was not by him lost in s’d Action, And for this purpose the Deputy Surveyor of the District is directed to make a Resurvey thereof and return it to the Board the first Monday in June next, taking particular care not to include any part which Taylor recovered as aforesaid.  A Copy of this Minute to be given at least thirty Days before the said first Monday in June in Order that Mr. Taylor may have an Opportunity of shewing Cause why a Patent ought not to issue to Hollingsworth.

 

The Heirs of John Hite

            v.

John Cowan.

            Hite not being able to support his Caveat the same is dismissed and Cowan allowed a Patent.

 

Abraham Strickler

            v.

Thomas & Henry Moore.

            A Survey made and Returned into the Surveyor Generals Office in the year 1763 for Michael _______in right of Jacob Kutz which is long before any right of Improvement or Warrant of Jacob Lentz under whom Strickler claims, Therefore his Caveat is dismissed.

 

Samuel Tate

            v.

William Maghee.

            This Case being postponed from the 15 July last and the Draught of John Moore now considered, it appears the plan or Land Located by Washington Tates Warrant is ____for Samuel Tate, Therefore Ordered that John Moore return the whole Vacancy on the said two Warrants dividing it equally as to quantity, but the part marked in the Draught No. 1 for Washington Tate, and the Draught No. 3 for Samuel, and to return it so as that Samuels Survey be least prejudicial to the Improvement which William Maghee claims under a Sherriffs Deed for the same, On which a Patent might issue to said Maghee on the produc’g a Transfer of Washingtons Warrant right, or as shall be further Ordered by the Board.

            The Certificate of Richard Peters being read on behalf of John Waynard who applied for a Patent for a Tract of Land Surveyed on John Prices Warrant, in York County a Patent is allowed to said Waynard.

 

 

6                                  MINUTES OF

           

            Ordered that James Harris Certify  to the Surveyor General whether or not the 150 Acres of Land granted by Warrant to John Schouler dated 6 February, 1789, is the same Tract which is returned as One Moiety of a Tract Surveyed on Application No. 1195 to John Crozier in Order that said Schouler may be allowed the money paid on his Warrant in the payment of said land.

 

Phineas Kilum

            v.

John Varvel.

            At a meeting the first Monday in Sept. 1789, the determination of the Case was deferred until the Title should be tried at Law, or until David Bradford, Esquire (who was concerned for Varvel was heard, and not the said Mr. Brackenridge appearing and producing an Instrument in Writing dated 29 December, 1789, from John Varvel purporting to be an acknowledgement of Mr. Brackenridge as his Landlord, And also another Instrument in Writing dated 1 April, 1790, under the Hand of the said David Bradford stating, the said John Varvel the Caveator being dead, and his Son his Heir and Representative relinquishing all pretensions And that the said Brackenridge having given satisfaction, he the said Bradford did Certify that he had no objection to the said Brackenridge having a Patent, Which several Instruments as well as former proceedings, being taken into consideration a Patent is allowed to said Brackenridge he producing a Title from under Kilum.

            After the Order was made for Hugh Brackenridge, Esq., in right of Phineas Kilum, it appeared that a Caveat had been entered by Joseph & Phebe Phillips, and Mary Hill, against granting the Warrant, Survey, &c., of the said Caveators it appears that they have a Patent the Lines and bounds of which it is apprehended includes part of the Survey made for Killum, Ordered therefore that the Deputy Surv’r of the District shall make Resurveys of the said two Tracts, and return a plot thereof to this Board the first Monday in _____next denoting how they interfere if they do interfere, & a Copy of this Minute to be given the said Caveators 30 days before the said first Monday in ____ next in Order that they may be heard.

            Jonas Hartzell, Esquire, laid before the Board the Survey of 56 Acres 72 perches in Williams Township made for John Getterd On Warrants of 8 August, 1786 & 4 October , 1790, thirty four Acres of which was formerly Surveyed by Order of Richard Hockley, dated 2d June, 1774 to Adam Mann but no such Order is to be found, Therefore Ordered that the Survey of the 34 Acres 30 perches shall be returned on the said Warr’t of the 4 October,

 

 

BOARD OF PROPERTY.            7

 

 

1790, and Patented to the said Getterd he paying  £ 5 Sterling P. Cent with Interest of 6 P. Cent from the 2 June, 1774, & the money paid at issuing that Warrant is to be allowed in the Settlement of the Account, which Mr. Hartzell agrees to.

            Allowed John Foulke to withdraw his Caveat against David Kline.

 

__________

 

 

            At a meeting at the Surveyor Generals the 6 day of February, 1792.

 

Present

 

            Daniel Broadhead, Esq., Surv. Gen’l

            Francis Johnston, Esq., Rec’r Gen’l                 of the Land Office.

            David Kennedy, Esq., Secretary

            Matthew Irwin, Esq., Master of the Rolls

 

 

Mark Conner

v.                                                                  On Caveat.

Samuel Leeser.

 

            On hearing the Parties it appears that the Land in dispute is contained in their Survey of 107 Acres made by James Scull Deputy Surveyor on an App’n of John Mears long before Mark Connor obtained his Warrant which is dated the 4 day of October 1786, Therefore Connors Caveat is dismissed and Leeser allowed a Patent.

 

Abraham Hartman

v.                                          On Caveat.

Michael Ringer.

            On hearing the Parties it appears that the Warrant to Adam Detrick and George Young dated the 15 February, 1767, under which Hartman claims (tho’ prior to Ringers) is not for the Land in dispute, And that Ringer hath a Warrant and Survey, Therefore the Caveat is dismissed and Ringer allowed a Patent.

 

Christian Stoner

            v.

Robert Clark.

            The Report of Jonathan McClure and Adam Orth pursuant to a reference of the Parties on the 7 Novem. last, And an Order of the Board the third day of January last, being produced declaring the right of the land to be vested in Clark the said Report is confirmed.

 

John Neil & John Eager

Guardians of Joseph

Marshall’s Heirs                      On Caveat.

            v.

Hugh Neely.

 

 

8                                                                    MINUTES OF

 

On hearing the Parties it appears that the Land in contest was recovered by Neely in an Action tried in the Court of Common Pleas in the year, 1781, and is included in a Survey of 204 Acres made by Benjamin Lodge on a Warrant dated in the year, 1787 to Neely, and after the Resurvey a Bond was given to the Executor of said Marshall for the value of the Land by Newell and Vance, which said Newell has sold the same to Joseph Marshall, Therefore Ordered that a Patent shall issue to said Neely.

 

 George Elder

v.                                          On Caveat.

John Owens.

            George Elder appeared and was heard exparte he proving the Service of Notice on William Morris who it is said claims under John Owens on which it appears that Elder claims under an Application of John McMath No. 1214 for 200 Acres on the Raystown branch of Juniata about 15 miles above the forks, bounded on the South Juniata, on the W. Alequipay Mountain, on the W. James Murdock, on the E. Vacant Cumberland County, On which a Survey is said to have been made by Joshua Elder, (as Assistant to Richard Tea) 13 June, 1768, of 134 Acres, And that William Morris claims under John Owens Application No. 332 for three hundred Acres on the W. side of Raystown Branch of Juniata supposed to be about 12 miles from the Mouth, Murdock Claim adjoining it up the Branch.  On considering of this Case, Ordered that the Deputy Surveyor of the District go to the Ground together with two others to be chosen by the said Parties respectively if they will choose. And to examine from the Testimony produced of the Location of John Owen which is the prior Application suits the Ground in dispute and to make a return of the Survey and a Report how the matter appears to them, on the first Monday in June next to which time this dispute is continued, a Copy of this minute be given Morris as soon as possible.

 

Hugh Skelly

v.                                          On Caveat.

George Heater.

            Skelly not appearing (tho’ duly notified) to support his Caveat the same is dismissed unless he shows Cause to the contrary the first Monday in June next.

 

William Newell

v.                                          On Caveat.

James Huston.

            Newells Son appearing but not having sufficient proof of the notification of the other Party, this Case is postponed to the first Monday in October next, A Copy of this Minute to be given Huston at least thirty days before the said first Monday in Oct’r.

 

BOARD OF PROPERTY.         9

 

Colo. William Cook

            v.

Galbreath Patterson, Esq.

            On hearing, Pattersons reason against granting a Patent to William Cook agreeable to an Order of this Board in August last, and on examining the Location & Surveys of the Parties, and the Testimony offered by Patterson, it was the Opinion of the Board that sufficient cause was shown why Patent should not issue to Cook, but to him on a Survey made on Thomas McFadian Application for the land in dispute But before the Minute of the Board was drawn up a Letter from Colo. Cook came to hand enclosing a Copy of the Record of Court whereby it appears that said Cook hath brought an Ejectment against Pattersons Tenant in possession which being taken into Consideration it is thought proper not to prevent the Patent issuing agreeable to the Opinion formed before any notice received, of such Ejectment brought, because the same was commenced while it was depending before the Board, and since the last Citation issued, and likewise since the agreement by Cook to attend a hearing at this time, which agreement is in proof by the Deposition of James Miller now produced, And upon the whole a Patent is allowed Patterson, or to those who shall show Title under McFadian’s Application and Survey.

 

Houser

   v.

Stofflet.

            Postponed to the first Monday in March next at Stoflets request in Order that further Testimony may be produced.

 

Peter Kessler

            v.

Joseph Martin &

    Martin

     v.

Shafer, Houser &

     Stoflet.

            On hearing the parites and exam’g a General Draught or Plott of the Lands in controversy and of several adjoining Tracts made by George Palmer Deputy Surveyor it appears that Martin for “200 Acres joining Mary Lisle, Casper Houser, Conrad Shafer and Peter Kessler.”  And that Peter Kessler claims under an Application of Nicholas Snyder for 200 Acres, and by virtue of three Warrants One of 15 Acres to Godlieb Hubler, one of 12 Acres to Hubler and one to himself for 100 Acres, On which Warrants and Application he hath taken 300 Acres And that the vacancy contains

            2-1

 

10

 

Contributed by Shirley Pierce