Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/18

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Supreme Court of Pennſylvania.
7

1762.

James Steel,” offered to be given in Evidence as the Foundation of the Defendant’s Title. Objected, on the Part of the Plaintiff, that James Steel by his Order only, without a Warrant from the Proprietors or the Commiſſioners of Property, could not authoriſe the Location of Lands: And even ſuppoſing it to amount to an Order from James Logan himſelf, as he was only one of three Commiſſioners, ſuch Order cannot be a sufficient Warrant.

But the Court ſaid, that under theſe Sort of Orders from the Proprietor’s Officers, a great Part of the Province had been ſettled, and that for a general conveniency they had been heretofore allowed to be given in Evidence, and particularly in M’Dowall’s Caſe. In that Caſe, laſt April Term, a Letter from Richard Peters Secretary of the Land-Office, to the ſame Effect as the above, was allowed; and the Letter in this Caſe was accordingly ruled to be given in Evidence.

A Plot of a Survey made in purſuance of the above Letter, in Iſaac Taylor’s own hand Writing, with a Note at the bottom thus “ſur. 9ber 10. 1720,” and in the Body of it, the Words “William Willis 400 Acres,” not returned into the Surveyor General’s or Secretary’s Office, but found among Isaac Taylor’s Land Papers, many Years after his Death, was allowed to be given in Evidence, againſt a regular Warrant and Survey poſterior to the above; a Settlement and Poſſeſſion being proved to have been made, the first Survey amounting to an Impropriation, and the Land Office appearing to have been ſhut between the Years 1718 and 1732.

N.B. On an Appeal to the King and Council, the Judgement of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Thomas Wallace verſus Child and Styles.

Suit on a Policy of Inſurance. It was ſet forth in the Declaration that the Veſſel ſprung a Leak at Sea, and put into Providence, through Neceſſity.—The Maſter of the Ship was produced by the Plaintiff as a Witneſs to prove the Bill of Lading, and to give a general Account of the Tranſactions on board the Veſſel and at Providence. His admiſſion was oppoſed, becauſe the Captain himſelf had Goods on board which were inſured, and the Money was refuſed to be paid by the Underwriters on his Policy till this Suit was determined, and therefore he was intereſted.—But it was anſwered, that the Maſter of the Ship was the only Perſon who can be ſuppoſed capable of giving a full Account of the Matter; and part of the Defence in this Caſe being, that the Goods inſured were innumerated Commodities and therefore not lawful to be ſhipt from Carolina to Madeira; and the Captain’s Goods inſured, were not to be landed at Madeira, but at London, therefore the Captain’s Inſurace could not be affected by an Determination in this Caſe.

The Court ruled, that he ſhould be examined on the Voire dire, and if he ſaid he was diſintereſted, he ſhould be ſworn in chief; which was done, and he was admitted a Witneſs.
Price