Conrad v. Williams
Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 29th of September, 1769, a patent was issued by the State of Maryland to Jacob Giles for a tract of land called “Bumney Marsh,” located in Baltimore county, and containing eleven hundred and eight-four acres. This land was particularly described in the patent which is of record in the Land Office. A certificate and plat of “Bumney Marsh” are recorded in that office, — the certificate of re-survey being dated March 25th, 1755.
The first, second, third and fourth lines of “Bumney Marsh,” as disclosed by the patent, run as follows : “Beginning at a bounded sweet gum tree standing by a great swamp or pocoson, it being the beginning tree of the land called ‘Logwood Bidge,’ and running thence north sixty perches unto theffieginning of the tract of land ‘The Marsh,’ then bounding on ‘The Marsh,’ ‘then hounding on the Marsh ’ northeast by east 'sixty perches until it intersects the north northeast one hundred and fifty perches line of a tract of land called ‘Lties Bumney;’ then bounding on that line of ‘ITties Bumney’ to the end thereof, north northeast thirty-four perches; then still bounding on the said line east thirty-two perches until it intersects the first line of the land called ‘The Marsh;’ then hounding on that line northeast hy east thirteen perches'unto Bumney Greek side; then bounding upward on the said creek the three following courses, etc,” 37 On the 2nd day of April, 1910, a'warrant was issued out of the Land Office directed to W. Elijah Somerville, a surveyor, to survey for Frederick R. Williams about one acre of vacant land in Harford county, bounded on the north by the land of Conrad Conrad; on the east by the middle of Rumney Creek and also by the lands of the Taylor’s Island Ducking and Fishing Company, of Baltimore City; on the south by the lands of Robert Archer; and on the west by the lands of the said Conrad. Mr. Somerville executed the warrant and filed in the Land Office a certificate of survey of eight acres and thirty-seven square perches of land by the name of “Maude Price’s Price.” The land surveyed is particularly described by courses and distances, and the certificate states that no part of the land described is covered by navigable .water. The first, second, third and fourth lines of the land embraced in the certificate are as follows: “Beginning for the same at the end of the fifth or north fifty-five degrees east sixty perches line of a tract of land called ‘Drew’s Enlargement Improved’ (Certficate of Re-Survey for Joseph Lusby, dated 15th day of December, 1761), which said beginning point is also the beginning of the 3rd or north northeast thirty-four perches line of a tract of land called ‘Rumney Marsh’ (Certificate of ReSurvey, dated 25th day of March, 1755, for Ann Atkinson, patented 29th September, 1769, to Jacob Giles), then with and binding on said “Rumney Marsh” with an allowance of three degrees, thirty-five minutes to the right to correct variation, the following four courses and distances; north twenty-six degrees, five minutes east thirty-four perches; south eighty-six degrees, twenty-five minutes east thirty-two perches; north fifty-nine degrees, fifty minutes east thirteen perches; north twelve degrees, twenty-five minutes west thirty and three-tenths perches, more or less, to the westerly shore of Romney Creek.” A copy of the plat returned by the surveyor which is here inserted, will show the location of the land in dispute. 38 Note — The said lines numbered 3, 4, 5, with arabio numerals are the 3d, 4th and 5th lines of “ Bumney Marsh " with the 5th line carried to Bumney Creek, as called for in the certificate of survey and patent of said “ Bumney Marsh ” ^The next 3 courses of “ Bumney Marsh ” run North-Westward binding on said creek for a distance of 112 perches). Three facts are apparent from the patent of “Rumney Marsh” granted to Jacob Giles in 1769 and from the certificate and plat made and returned to the Land Office by Mr. Somerville: Hirst, that the first, second and third lines of “Maud Price’s Price,” which is claimed to be vacant land, correspond with the third, fourth and fifth lines of “Rumney Marsh” patented to Jaeob Giles; and secondly, that a vacancy was created by rejecting or disregarding the call, — Romney Greek Side, in the Giles patent; and thirdly, that there would 39 exist no vacancy west of Romney Creek and north of the first, second and third lines of “Maud Price’s Price” had Mr. Somerville adopted the call instead of distance in the Giles patent in running the third line of “Maud
This is a preview of Conrad v. Williams. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.