Garnett v. Jenkins
APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
This case was commenced in the circuit court by a bill in chancery, filed by Reuben Garnett, a citizen of Virginia, on the 30th of December 1815, against Henry Jenkins and others, citizens of the state of Kentucky, in the seventh circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, for the purpose of asserting his claim to one thousand one hundred and sixty-four and two-thirds acres of land. Since which time the complainant died, and the suit has been revived in the name of his representatives.
The only question put in issue by the bill and answers, is the validity of the following entry under which the complainants claim: 'May 10, 1708, Reuben Garnett enters one thousand one hundred and sixty-four and two-thirds acres upon a treasury warrant on the seventh big fork, about thirty miles below Bryant's station, that comes in on the north side of North Elkhorn, near the mouth of said creek, and running up both sides thereof for quantity.'
RICHARD HIGGINS, F. C.
The defendants have exhibited no title papers, and by consent of the parties, the validity of this entry was the only question submitted to the court below, as will appear by the following agreement. 'Reuben Garnett's heirs v. Christopher Greenup's heirs and others, in chancery. The counsel for the complainants in this cause, and the counsel in the defence, believing that the case, so far as it depends on the validity or invalidity of the entry of the complainants, to wit, the entry in the name of Reuben Garnett deceased, is as fully prepared as it can be at this day. For the purpose of saving costs, the parties agree to try the cause as relates to the validity or invalidity of the entry, and that the complainants, in case the entry is sustained by the court, shall be permitted to make such further preparations by survey, revival against the heirs or representatives of deceased parties if necessary, &c., as may be necessary to carry into effect the opinion of the court. Therefore, for the present, it is conceded that the patent boundary of Garnett covers the claim of each of defendants in part.'
The court below dismissed the complainant's bill, to reverse which decree this appeal is prosecuted.
The case was submitted to the court on an argument by Mr Allan, for the appellants.
Mr Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.