Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/402

388 FBDEEAIi REPORTER. �previously been issued, or which had been previously surveyed; and any patent which may, nevertheless, be pbtained for land located contrary to the provisions of this act shall be null and void." 3 St. at Large, 772. �The right of the complainant , to the relief sought is contested on several grounds, which remain to be stated and considered in their order : �1. The defendants, in the first place, deny the heirship of the complainant, and claim that at least there is a failure of proof upon that point. Without critically examining and analyzing the evidence upon the question, it is suffieient, to say that there seems to be enough competent testimony in support of the complainant's claim to justify a finding in her favor. �2. The next ground of objection is more serions, and difficult of satisfactory determination. It appears from the testimony that Archibald Crordon, Jr., son of the revolutionary soldier, was married in 1827 to Sarah E. Hart, daughter of Joseph Hart and sister of Stephen F. Hart. There is also produced in evidence, on the part of the defendants, a copy, certified by the recorder of Logan county, in which these fends are situate, of a deed duly executed, and dated June 27, 1S27, between Archibald Gordon, described therein as late of Cecil county, Maryland, and Stephen F. Hart, of the county of Baltimore, whereby, in consideration of $100 paid by Joseph Hart, Archibald Gordon grants, bargains, and sells to Stephen F. Hart, in fee-simple, all his lands in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, describing, amongst others, one tract in Ohio, surveyed on military warrant No. 6508 and on entry No. 12017, and setting out an accurate copy of the description contained in the survey. This deeds purports to have been signed and sealed by Archibald Gordon, and is acknowl- edged by him in the city of Baltimore, before two justices of the peace, duly certified to have been such at the time by the clerk of the superior court of that city, �It is contended by the defendants that it is effeetually shown by this deed that no estate or iiiterest in the lands in controversy ever vested in the complainant, whether it be regarded as the deed of Archibald Gordon, Sr., or of his son ; even on the latter supposition, if it were made duringthe life-time of his father. That Archibald Gor- don, Sr., was living at the time of its date is clearly shown by proof that he was in receipt of a pension as late as in September of the year 1829. In the absence of any proof on the subject, and if it were necessary to the decision of the case, it seems to me that the ��� �