Seward's Lessee v. Hicks

²³ After this judgment was obtained against William Seward; Mary and Ann Seward, his daughters and co-heirs, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery against Thomas Hicks, the defendant in the ejectment. The bill states, that on the 23d of January, 1674, George Seward, the grandfather of the complainants, obtained a common warrant for surveying 1,000 acres of land, and on the 17th of April, 1675, had surveyed a tract of land in Dorchester County, called Sectar, containing 769 acres, which survey was duly returned to the land office. And also by virtue of the same warrant had surveyed another tract of land, called Cumber lake, lying in the said County and containing 100 acres, which was also returned to the land office. That the said George Seward became embarrassed in his circumstances, and was forced to depart the Province without obtaining patents for the said lands.

That the said George, leaving a wife and children in the Province, continued absent several years and died. That William Seward, father of the complainants, as son and heir of the said George, applied for patents for the said lands; but Thomas Smithson of Talbot and Thomas Smithson of Dorchester Counties, had prevented patents being granted to the said William by having, in the absence of the said George, preferred to his Lordship a petition with many false suggestions, that the lands were surveyed upon no lawful warrants, that no patents had issued, that the said George had been absent above seven years, and that his Lordship’s rents were unpaid, praying for a special warrant to take up the said lands, and also a tract, also surveyed for the said George, called Hardgrove, lying in the said County and containing 50 acres; which warrant was granted with a proviso that the allegations in the said petition were true, that no lawful warrant had already issued for the same, and a special warrant accordingly issued on the 26th of February, 1683, 4. Which warrant having issued, a patent was refused to the said William until the right thereto should be determined, but a patent, was granted to the said Smithson of Talbot, who survived ²⁴ the other of that name, for the land called Sectar. Also a patent for the land called Cumberlake, without the allegations of the said petition being proved, or the said William ever being called to shew any cause to the contrary.

That the warrant issued without any regard being had to the proviso, upon which the said warrant was to be granted, and contrary to his Lordship’s design and the intent of the order of Council, whereon it was supposed to be founded, to wit: “ That the the allegations of the said petitioners should be “ made appear.” That it can be fairly made appeal*, that a lawful warrant issued to the said George Seward, and that the warrant was paid for. That although the complainants could make appear, the falsity of the allegations in the petition of the said