4th. General Regulations embracing every species of claim tô which they can apply. Some of which, however, are repealed or suspended by subsequent clauses.

North Carolina, when legislating on the subject of her lands, observed a method peculiar to herself. The captions of all, and preamble of many of her subsequent acts on this subject, contemplate some one of the three first mentioned divisions. And into these acts thus headed, general regulations, are introduced, contrary to the usual form of legislating-1st. Thus we find the caption of the Acts, November 1777, c. 1. Ird. 292. April 1779, c. 6. Ird. 367. 1787, c. 23. 1rd. 625, relating to the County Claims2d. Military and Attendant Claims are referred to by the captions of the Acts, 1782, c, 3. Ird. 421. 1783, c. 3. Ird. 449. April 1784, c. 15. Ird. 483. April 1784, c. 58. Martin's private Statutes, edit. 1794, p. 137-3d. John Armstrong's Claims, by the Acts of 1783, c. 2. Ird. 446. April 1784, c. 14. Ird. 482. October 1784, c. 19. Ird. 539. 1786, c. 29. Ird. 589-4th, In relation to this division, or general regulations, they may be principally found in the 6th, 7th and 9th sections of the Act of 1777, Ird. 293-4.1779, s. 6 Ird. 368. Acts 1783, c. 2. sects. 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Ird. 446 to 449. April 1784, c. 14, sec. 4 and 7 Ird. 482-3. October 1784, c. 18, s. 6, Ird. 540, Acts 1786, c. 20. Preamb. and sec. 1, 2, 3, general as to all claims in the western country, Ird. 589.

In the construction of these acts, it will be also noted that the legislature passed but one amendatory act to their county system, before the opening of John Armstrong's office for their western lands, after which (except in one instance 1787, Ird 625) we find her professedly legislating as appears by the captions of the acts, on the subject of John Armstrong's claims, and introducing general regulations into those laws-except in the instance of October 1784 c 19. s. 7, which respects the military lands alone. When legislating upon the subject of the second division or military claims, we do not perceive any general regulations, but we perceive in the particular acts, a silence in the legislature upon important and essential points, which irresistably leads to a conclusion, that they thought it unnecessary to express, that in a particular act, which was done on a former occasion, and which would govern

the mode of executing their will expressed, 4 Rep. 4. Ld. Ray. 1028. In this view of the subject, it is we perceive, that the act of 1782 C 2. S. 7 is silent as to what shall constitute an improve. ment, but the 3d section of the act of 1779 C. 2, made upon another occasion defines an improvement So, as to entries, the act of April 1784. C 15. S. 1, respecting military claims, makes no effort to define of what nature the calls of an entry shall be, but the acts of November 1777. C 1. S 5. and 1783. C. 2. S. 11 respecting County, and John Armstrong's claims do. Nor is the manner of enter. ing preemption, and other similiar rights, otherwise defined by the last mentioned act, S 9, than by reference to the above sections. So of caveats; the act of 1783 C 2. S 11. concerning John Armstrong's claims, speaks of caveats, but does not provide the man. ner of preventing; nor do the acts respecting the military division as above, but the act of November 1777 C 1 Sec 6-7, does. So as to surveys, the act of April 1784 C 15. S 3 is silent as to the mode of surveying preemptions, but the same section as to the manner of surveying other lands furnishes a rule.

The same observation applies to the 19th section of the act of 1783. C 2. The manner in which surveyors shall make the boundaries of their tracts, is not pointed out, but the act of November 1777. S 10 does.

Iredel 517, 1786 C 7. S 13 is silent both as to the entering and surveying Evan's Batttalion rights, but the method in use, previous to any entry law (Nov. 1777) may obtain, vide act 1715 C 33. Ird. 19: And lastly, the 2d section of the act of 1783. C 2, clearly conveys the idea that the legislature had under their consideration, entries for county, as well as John Armstrong's claims, which comprehended every species of entries, at that time. Afer the legislature had been legislating upon each of the three divisions, of the land law, and when entries were required under them all, in October 1784. C 19. S 6, speaking of the removal of entries generally, they use the language, by virtue of the law, commonly called the land law, now in force in this state," which is a legislative opinion, upon this part of the case, that all the acts of the legislature concerning the disposition of vacant land, should be taken into consideration in construing any one of them. The No. XIV.

D

design of the legislature by this act of 1777 was, to offer their vacant land for sale, in doing which, they by the 9th section provided, 1st. against impositions upon the state-2d. against impositions of one citizen on another. In the first was contemplated the Oath of Allegiance, and payment of the consideration money 4th s-If the state had any remedy on this ground, agreeably to the principles of Law, it would be sought by Sci, fa.

The other regulations of the act, as entering, surveying, &c. were intended for the government of individuals, in procuring a completion of their claims, so that one might not injure another. As to which, the legislature designed to give adverse claimants, an opportunity of opposing the emanation of a grant, by a right of caveat. Sec. 6-7; and it clearly appears from the language they used in the 6th section, that they had not any idea of an opposing claim, except from right of occupancy, by caveat.

Of an opposing or interfering claim from an Entry alone, the legislature had no idea at this time; nor is there any provision in this act upon that subject-Perhaps they conceived from the country being extensively vacant, there was not any probability of it, except from occupants. There was no Court of Equity in the state at that time. Taking the whole of this act together, there was but one case, as it respected the civil law, or that governing the intercourse between citizens, to which the 9th section so much insisted on,could apply :-Viz. where a younger enterer shall procure a survey before the expiration of three months and obtain an older grant, to the injury of an older entercr. This being the time allowed by law for opposing a claim by caveat, which if not used, the claim was supposed to be abandoned, or neglected, and the parties without remedy. 1 Hay, 107, per Williams J.

There is not any provision in this act, as to the order of making surveys, so as to secure the right of the first enterer, because interferences from entries alone were not contemplated. The 5th and 10th sections are directory to the surveyor, as to the time and manner of making surveys, in which it is manifest that the legis lature did not design, that the claimant or enterer, should have any agency, or control. The 5th section directs the entry taken to deliver to the surveyor an order of survey, and the 10th directs

the surveyor as soon as may be to lay off and survey the same agreeable to this act, and make thereof two fair plats," which he shall return to the secretaries office, in order that a grant may issue.

In April 1779, the legislature took up the subject of interfering claims alone. Their first object was to procure a preference by law, to occupants and possessors. The first three sections, are employed for their security. The 7th directs the surveyor to return his warrants and plats within 12 months in order that a grant may issue. A provision omitted in the first act. The 6th is the first provision made by the legislature against interfering claims by entry alone. The remedy provided is a direction to the surveyor, that he shall survey entries in turn: the eldest being first surveyed. The legislature supposing that as the surveyors were directed to return their surveys, they would do so, in the order, in which they were made, so that grants would issue in the same order; and in this way the oldest enterer would not sustain any damage. If the entry was caveated, the surveyor was injoined not to survey either entry until a determination, and then the one prevailing which is one among many other reasons for believing, that by these acts, the legislature designed the grants when fairly obtained (allowing three months to a caveat) should be final and not affected by the 9th section. When considering the 6th section of the act of 1779, we are unavoidably led to ask, why did not the legislature declare unequivocally, that all grants obtained upon younger entries to the prejudice of elder ones, should be void, as they did in their acts of 1786 and 1787, for they must before this time, have been well apprised that grants were obtained upon younger entries to the prejudice of older; or if this incon. venience was not felt then, surely it must have been before the act of 1786. The 9th section of the act of 1777 did not in my apprehension reach the case. If it did, there would have been no necessity for the acts of 1786 and 1787. Viewing the high and solemn nature of a state grant, and that parties had a full opportu. nity of caveating, it was with difficulty the legislature could bring themselves to legislate respecting their validity. Nor is it probable, that the surveyors then had surveyed generally, other

wise than in turn that they would have passed the acts of 1786 and 1787. The courts of law, we know could not afford redress previous to the passage of the acts of 1786 and 1787, if then; which is the main question.

The next in order is the 19th section of the act of April 1783, c. 2. This section directs the surveyor to survey in turn, or according to number and date, and to express in his plats the number and elate of each entry, to prevent the improper emanation of grants, and" disputes which have or may arise." But it is not said either in this, or the act of 1779, that if a grant shall issue, upon a younger entry to the prejudice of an older enterer, that it shall be void though they had established a Court of Equity (1782) previous to their last act. So high and important did they conceive a state grant, for they must have known, and felt, that injuries had arisen in a great variety of cases-considering that parties had an opportunity of caveating, they doubted whether the remedy, as introducing a general inconvenience, would not be worse than the evil.

The act of 1786, is the first in which we find the legislature declaring grants void for any cause whatever, as between citizen and citizen. In the decision of the question, now before the court, it is important to ascertain the meaning of this act, with as much certainty as possible-The first part of the preamble is declaratory by the meaning of their laws on the subject of entries-The act states that it was the meaning of those laws, that the first enterers should have preference in surveying and obtaining grants--The acts of 1779 and 1783 convey the idea of obtaining the first grant, by necessary inference only. The surveyor is directed in these acts to survey according to priority of entry; and nothing is said as to the order, in point of time, of issuing grants, though as stated, the same order is implied from the contest.

The second number of the preamble states, that individuals had caused lands to be surveyed in the western parts of the state, (now Tennessee) upon younger entries, and had, or were about to obtain grants, to the prejudice of older enterers. To prevent and provide a remedy, the first section enacts, in substance, that surveys and grants of land, in the western part of the state "hereto