Lamb v. Harris

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Lumpkin, J
• Citation: Lamb v. Harris, 8 Ga. 546 (Ga. 1850)
• Decision Date: 30 June 1850
• Docket Number: No. 90.,90.
• Parties: Jacob Lamb, plaintiff in error. vs. Lewis F. Harris,defendant.

8 Ga. 546

Jacob Lamb, plaintiff in error. vs. Lewis F. Harris, defendant.

No. 90.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JUNE TERM, 1850.

Decision on demurrer, in Muscogee Superior Court, by Judge Alexander, May Term, 1850.

The bill filed by Lewis Lamb charged, that in the land lottery disposing of the lands in Muscogee County, one Charles Whitlock was the drawer of lot No. 176, in the 6th district, who afterwards sold the same to William Crew, and that William Crew sold to complainant, who had remained in possession ever since; that upon the sale to Crew, Whitlock applied at the Executive and other Departments of the Government at Milledgeville, to obtain the grant, and was informed by the officers in charge of the same, that the grant had issued on the 1st day of July, 1829; and that Whitlock, on examination, found that the same was entered, as granted on that day, in the books of the Executive Department; that when complainant purchased, Crew produced a letter from John Bethune, then Surveyor General of the State, staling that the grant had issued on the day stated. As evidence that a grant had issued, the bill stated that the plat had been removed from among the plats of ungranted lots, and placed among those of granted lots, according to the custom of that Department. The bill charged that the entry in the Executive Department was not fraudulent, but was made, either when the grant actually issued, or by mistake; but that it appeared that the grant never had been recorded in the Secretary of State\'s office, as required by law.

The bill farther charged, that under the Act of 1845, disposing of ungranted lots, Lewis F. Harris had applied for and obtained a grant to this lot, for which he paid $100; that Harris, at the time, knew of these mistakes, and that they had caused the grant not to be issued; that Harris had commenced an action of ejectment to recover the land, and that the same was pending on the appeal. The bill alleged a tender to Harris of the amount paid by him with interest, and offered still to pay it. The bill prayed a perpetual injunction.

On demurrer, the Court dismissed the bill, and this decision is alleged as error.

H. Holt, for plaintiff' in error.

Jas. Johnson, for defendant.

By the Court. —Lumpkin, J. delivering the opinion.

We recognise the right of the citizen to be relieved againsta grant which has been improperly issued by the State, in a proper case made; for, as Sir Edward Coke tells us, the Chancellor in England derives...