Bass v. DiNwiddie
| Citation | 3 Tenn. 130 |
| Parties | BASS v. DINWIDDIE. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1812 |
| Court | Tennessee Circuit Court |
At law. The plaintiff [lessee of Bass] is a citizen of North Carolina, and claimed the land in controversy by a grant, older in date than that under which the defendant claims. To obviate that the defendant produced in evidence an entry made on the 3d day of August, 1807, of an occupant claim, under the law of 1806, which was prior to the date of the plaintiff's grant. The plaintiff then produced an entry upon a military warrant made the 5th day of August, 1807. The offices for receiving and making entries were opened on the 3d day of August, 1807; but it appeared that no entry had been made until the 5th day of August, except as to occupant claims. The holders of warrants were obliged to have them listed, and then drew for priority of entry which was not done as to occupant claims.
The compact between North Carolina and Tennessee contains the following provision:-‘That in the entering and obtaining titles to lands, no preference shall be given to the citizens of the state of Tennessee over citizens of any other state, claiming under North Carolina; nor shall any occupancy or possession give preference in entering or obtaining titles so as to injure or take away the right of any person now claiming by entry, grant, or otherwise, under North Carolina.’ This compact was ratified in the year 1804.
The section of the occupant law of 1806, under which the defendant made his entry, is as follows:-‘That any person or persons who may have seated him, her, or themselves on any vacant and unappropriated land within the jurisdiction of this state, and who were in actual possession of the same at and before the 1st day of May in the present year, such person or persons shall be entitled to a preference of entering the same for three months after the first Monday in June next, upon any good and valid warrant.’
Testimony was introduced to show an actual settlement at and before the 1st day of May, 1806; but this point was controverted by other evidence. [Judgment for plaintiff.]
Mr. Dickinson, for plaintiff.
Mr. Haywood, for defendant.
The question of occupancy is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. One thing, however, is certain, that unless the occupant was seated on, and in actual possession of, the premises at and before the first day of May, 1806, he was not as such entitled to make his entry. The privilege given was intended in favor of the actual settler, and before any person can claim the extension of it to him he must show that he comes within the law. But it has been argued by the counsel for the defendant that his entry is good, independent of the occupant law. To this it may be replied that he can no otherwise claim. At the opening of the office the holder of a warrant, desirous of making an entry, was to have it listed, and then draw for priority of entry. This was not necessary upon the warrants...
To continue reading
Request your trial