Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

Summary

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Clement v. Packer — Opinion of the Court

It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey. We understand this to mean that, when the location of a survey is or can be ascertained and determined by its own marks upon the ground,-its own calls and courses and distances,-it cannot be changed or controlled or enlarged or diminished by the marks or lines of an adjoining junior survey
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Clement v. Packer — Opinion of the Court

Reputed boundaries are often proved by the testimony of aged witnesses, and the hearsay evidence of such witnesses has been admitted to establish such lines, in opposition to the calls of an ancient patent. It is not the lines reported, but the lines which have been actually run by the surveyor, which vests in a patentee a title to the area included within those lines. These decisions clearly require the admission of the testimony rejected by the court below, and the decisions cited by the counsel for defendant in error also seem to us in harmony with the tenor and effect of them.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Clement v. Packer — Opinion of the Court

The learned counsel for the defendant in error argue with great force and ingenuity that the rule is firmly established as the law of Pennsylvania that, after a survey has been returned into the land-office for the period of 21 years unchallenged by any adverse claimants in the mode required by law, it is a conclusive presumption that the survey was actually made and marked upon the ground as shown by the official return.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature