by John Marshall

“ No motive can be imagined for all wing two or more persons to unite their entries in one survey, which does not apply with at least as much force for allowing a single person to unite his entries adjoining each other in one survey. ”

“ Sevier's survey is dated on the 26th day of May, 1795.
The lands for which the warrants were granted, by virtue of which the survey was made, lie within that district of country for which the land office was opened by the act of 1777. Had the survey been made on the land originally claimed by these warrants, it must have been a case directly within the nith section of the act; and the right is declared by that section to be utterly void. But the survey was made on different lands by virtue of an act which empowers the surveyor so to do in all cases of entries on lands previously appropriated. ”

“ That the warrants were forgeries.
The patent cannot be declared void for any prior irregularity. In ejectment you must stop at the patent. And the prior patent gives the better title.
5. That at the time of the cession of the lands to the United States there were no entries authorizing the warrants.
This is in substance the same as the third objection. It is too general and vague, and involves fact and law.
6. That no consideration was paid. This, if true, does not avoid the patent; for if the money was not paid Sevier remains debtor for it to the state. ”

“ But there are some things so essential to the validity of the contract, that the great principles of justice and of law would be violated, did there not exist some tribunal to which an injured party might appeal, and in which the means by which an elder title was acquired, might be examined. ”

“ It does not appear that the entries in this case were not made before the cession. The Plaintiff's grant was also issued by the state of North Carolina, five years after the Defendant's.
C. LEE, in reply.
The practice of England, as to revoking patents, is no rule respecting the land laws of this country. The register of the land office is only an officer of the law; can transfer nothing but according to his authority, and cannot grant contrary to law.
The patent is void on its face. ”

“ The next objection is that the grant comprehends 50,000 acres instead of 25,060.
But the grant is only for the 25,000, although the survey may include more. The statute which prohibits grants for more than 5,000 acres, does not vacate such grants. It is only directory to the officer; and such grants are recognized by the laws of North Carolina. 1784, ch. 19. The excess is no evidence of such fraud as will vacate the deed.
The Defendants were not bound to show the correctness of their entries; nor any thing else prior to the patent. The entries were merged in the patent. ”

“ The counsel for the Plaintiff then offered to prove for the purpose of avoiding the said grant.
1. That the forty warrants of 640 acres each mentioned in the said grant, purport, on their face, to have been issued by Landon Carter, entry taker of Washington county, and that the land covered by the said grant is situated between the Cumberland mountain, and Tennessee river and not within the said county of Washington.
2. That the consideration of ten pounds for every hundred acres was fraudulently inserted in the said grant, by prosurment of said grantee, John Sevier. ”