Summary

Bouldin v. Massie's — Opinion of the Court

Indeed, it is deemed doubtful, whether, after the owner had entered the warrant, and thus put an end to its assignable character, that character could again be restored by the unauthorized act of another.
Upon the whole, we insist that the evidence does not make for the defendants even a prima facie case of assignment; that when its competency and effect are examined by settled principles of law, it amounts to nothing: of consequence, there is nothing for the plaintiffs to disprove. The right of their ancestor is vested in them, and they must recover.
Source: Wikisource

Bouldin v. Massie's — Opinion of the Court

If this is the law where the original owner asserts no claim, and is no party before the Court, there is much stronger reason that it should be so when such original owner is pursuing his right in the hands of a third person, whose claim he contests. It has, indeed, been decided, that when a grant once issues, such grant is prima facie evidence that every intermediate act necessary to authorize the emanation of the grant has been regularly transacted.
Source: Wikisource

Bouldin v. Massie's — Opinion of the Court

All presumptions stand upon their own particular circumstances. But presumptions are never resorted to where the facts are otherwise understood. Here the nature and character of the pretended assignment is fully in evidence. It stands surrounded with many suspicious circumstances. Proofs as well as presumptions are strong against the fairness of Massie's conduct. In such a case it would surely be very unsafe to found a title upon presumption.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature