Surams Coun or Pam;/jl·v.mi;., :99 not only an a&ual, but a legal poflellion; and on payment of _1788. the'purchal`·: money to the former proprietaries, his legal title to Saw`.; the premifes would have been perfcélcd. ` ` For the defendant, however, it is ftated, that he difcovered the traét, of which the plaintiH"s furvey is a part, in the year e 175; ; that at feveral times heere£ted a Cabbin,a Mill, and a Lime-Kyln upon it ; that he cleared fome of the land, and that he made a coufentable line with a neighbour. But thefe circum· flances the Court declare, will not conllitute a legal title. Even in a (late of nature they would confer no right to the 157 acres, within thelplaintiff `s furvey ; for, on any part of thofe acres, it is not pretended, that the defendant has ever exereifed an aél: of induflary, or that he has even maintained a pdi: He madenoinelofure , he cut no timber; nor,_ in ihort, in any form appropriated, or fet apart, the premifesin queilion, from the common mafs of the circumjacent land. To ail`ert, there- fore, that he has acquired an exclulive title, is not lefs extrava- gant, than to fuppofe, that a whole river becomes tire property of him who takes a pitcher of Water out of it 5 or that no other man is afterwards entitled to ufe any part of the water, which may happen again to fall from the pitcher into the (iream. For, let me alk, what is the definition of an improvement? Has it no quality, or form? Andis the quantity of land attached to it cireumfcribed by no limits? To thefc enquiries I have been unable to obtain a fatisfaflory anfwer. The owners of the bilof Pmrw·lt·ania were, originally, the proprietaries ; and under their authority agents were appointed to make fales and grants of particular trafks. If two or three perfons claimed the Erme land, ·the agent had, in lirigilnefs, a power to grant it to which of the claimants he pleafed ; but if one of them had feated himfelf on the land, and by his own lar ‘ hour and money; had improved its value, the proprietaries and- their agent always felt an equitable obligation to make the grant in favor of iirch poil`ell`or. If, however, the proprietaries who are the owners of it fhould not chufe to do fo, the Courtcannot interfere to controul, or regulate, the exercife of their undoubt- ed territorial right. An attempt of that kind, would fhake the very foundations of property.; and render a Kerdiél, or judgment, ' not a folemn determination on evidence and law, but an inllru· ‘ ment of favour to the party, for whom the Court or jury {hould entertain n predileélion. But we mult remember, that we are bound by an oath, to adminilier julliee according to thelaws,_ without pnrtiality, or prejudice. ` " Verdiéi for tlnel‘laia1Etl1_ N2 M·Knm:
�
