Smith & Purviances v. State ex rel. Yates

The defendants’ anszver. That by virtue of an escheat warrant granted to William Rogers, to escheat a tract of Find called Bold Venture, dated the 27th of April, 1759, directed to the then deputy-surveyor of Baltimore county, the said surveyor did, on the 13th of June, 1759, survey for the said Rogers, a tract of land called Rogers’s Inspection, lying in two parts, on which said survey a certificate was returned, and patent thereon issued on che 29th of September, 1759. That the plat annexed to the information, does not contain either a true location i>f Rogers’s Inspection, nor of the waters of the north ²⁵⁰ west branch of Patapsco, and is materially defective, &c-They hope an accurate survey might be made, &c. Other parts of the information are either admitted, or the proof thereof put upon the complainant.

That the tract called Bond's Marsh Resurveyed, is at some tides covered with water, and at other tides uncovered by water and muddy ground, and in some parts covered with flags. They admit that the said tract is within the distance of two miles from Baltimore town, but deny that the grant for the same was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. They admit that the said Tates was forbade, by them, to make and extend the ■wharves by him begun. That they have a good title, &c.

Exhibits and proofs. Extracts from the proceedings of the port-wardens. “ The board took in consideration the application of Thomas Tates to extend the Lots No. 451. and 452. to navigable water, and are of opinion that the said lots shall extend in a south direction, parallel with Harford street, to intersect a line drawn east. from,.and parallel with, the south side of Lee street. Samuel Purvianee being present, and objecting on behalf of himself and others, to the above permission, as interfering with his property in front of said lots, The Board are of opinion, that the said permission shall not be deemed and .taken to affect or injure the rights or claims of any individuals whatever; and permission was granted accordingly, the. said Thomas Tztes securing each side of his wharf effectually, as the same shall be extended, so.as not to injure the adjoining lots.” A similar application to extend-Lots No. 388. and 408. into the basin to the channel, and the like permission to extend in a south direction, parallel with Gay street, binding on the line of Jones’s Falls, to intersect a line drawn east from, and parallel with, the south side of ²⁵¹ Lee street. A. Purviance objected as above, and the same