D city to fix

IED, on Monday, the 25th of February, in and powers of investigation have very much

in the fifty-eighth year of his age. He was one of the board of commissioners for settling the claims under the British treaty of 1794, and had represented the government of this country, as its minister plenipotentiary, success ively, at the courts of London, Naples, and St. Petersburgh, with dignity and ability; he had held, with the highest reputation, the office of Attorney-General of the United States; and at the time of his death was a senator in Congress from his native state of Maryland, and a distinguished ornament of this bar. His funeral took place on the ensuing Wednesday, in the forenoon, under the direction of the senate, and was attended with all those public solemnities and that reverential sorrow due to his exalted talents and station.

In the discussion of that class of causes especially, which, to use his own expressions, "presented the proud spectacle of a peaceful judicial review of the conflicting sovereign claims of the government of the Union and of the particular states, by this more than Amphictyonic council," his arguments were characterized by a fervor, earnestness, gravity, eloquence, and force of reasoning, which convinced all who heard him that he delivered his own sentiments as a statesman and a citizen, and was not merely solicitous to discharge his duty as an advocate. He exerted an intellectual vigor proportioned to the magnitude of the occasion. He saw in it "a pledge of the immortality of the Union; of a perpetuity of national strength and glory, increasing and brightening with To extraordinary natural endowments, Mr. age; of concord at home, and reputation Pinkney added deep and various knowledge in abroad." And in his argument on the constihis profession. A long course of study and tutionality of the charter of the Bank of the practice had familiarized his mind with the United States, he stated, that "the considerascience of the law, in every department; and tion which the question involved imparted to it his attainments in the auxiliary branches of a peculiar character of importance; and this learning, essential to the jurist and advocate, tribunal, distinguished as it is for all that can were of the most profound and elegant charac-give to judicature a title to reverence, is in ter. For many years he was the acknowledged leader at the head of the bar of his native state; and during the last ten years of his life -the principal period of his attendance in this court he enjoyed the reputation of having been rarely equalled, and perhaps never excelled, in eloquence and the power of reasoning upon legal subjects. His mind was acute and subtle; rapid in its conceptions, and singularly felicitous in the exposition of the truths it was employed in investigating. Mr. Pinkney had the command of the greatest variety of the most beautiful and peculiarly appropriate diction, and the faculty of adorning and illustrating the dryest and most intricate discussions. His favorite mode of reasoning was from the analogies of the law; and whilst he delighted his auditory by his powers of amplification and rhetorical ornament, he instructed the That intense application to his professional court by tracing up the technical rules and pos- and public labors, for which Mr. Pinkney was itive institutions of jurisprudence to their his- so remarkably distinguished, continued to anitorical source and first principles. He was pro- mate his exertions to the last moments of his foundly versed in the ancient learning of the life; and as he held up a high standard of excommon law; its technical peculiarities and cellence in this honorable career, he pursued it feudal origin, its subtle distinction and arti- with unabated diligence and ardor, and still ficial logic, were familiar to his early studies, continued to speak as from the impulse of and enabled him to expound, with admirable youthful ambition. His example was therefore force and perspicuity, the rules of real prop-of the greatest utility in exciting the emulation erty. To this, and his other legal attainments, he superadded, at a later period of life, an extensive acquaintance with the theory and administration of public law.

In the various questions of constitutional law which have been recently discussed in this high tribunal, it may be said, it is hoped, with out irreverence, that Mr. Pinkney's learning

deliberating and adjudicating upon it, in the exercise of its most exalted, its most awful functions. The legislative faculties of the gov ernment of the Union, for the prosperity of the Union, are in the lists against the imputed sovereignty of a particular state; and you are the judges of the lists; not, indeed, upon the romantic and chivalrous principles of tilts and tournaments, but upon the sacred principles of the constitution. in whatever direction you look, you cannot but perceive the solemnity, the majesty of such an occasion. In whatever quarter you approach the subject you cannot but feel that it demands from you the firm and steady exertions of all those high qualities which the universal voice ascribes to those who have devoted themselves to the ministry of this holy sanctuary."

of the profession. But it is as an enlightened defender of the national constitution against the attacks which have been made upon it under the pretext of asserting the claims of state sovereignty, that his loss is most to be lamented by the public. It is known to his friends that he was, a short time before his death, engaged in the investigations preparatory to

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall replied in the following words:

making a great effort in the senate upon this, allow this day for the uninterrupted indulgence interesting subject. The loss of such a com- of our feelings, and for that purpose now to mentary upon the constitution, by one who had adjourn." so profoundly meditated its principles, may be regarded as a public calamity. It is also to be regretted that the great fame of his eloquence must rest mainly in tradition; as it is believed that no perfect memorials of his most splendid efforts in the senate or at the bar have been preserved, and it is obviously impossible to form any adequate notions of the powers of an advocate from the sketches of the arguments of counsel contained in the books of the reports.

The following proceedings of the court and bar took place upon the occasion of Mr. Pinkney's decease:

Feb. 26. On the meeting of the court, this morning, Mr. Harper rose, and addressed the judges thus:

"On the part of the bar, may it please your Honors, I am about to address a request to the court, which I am sure will accord with its feelings, and I hope will not be considered as

inconsistent with its duty.

""A great man has fallen in Israel.' The bar has lost one of its brightest ornaments; the court one of its ablest and most enlightened

advisers.

"When such men fall, it seems fit that some expression of public regret should attend them to the tomb. It cannot be useful or pleasing to them, but it tends to increase the effect of their example to those who survive, and to soothe the sorrow of their afflicted relatives.

"Nowhere can such a tribute more properly be paid to the memory of our departed brother than here; where the pre-eminent talents and acquirements by which he adorned our profession have been so often displayed; and he has taken so large a part in fixing those great legal and constitutional land marks by the establishment of which this court has conferred the most solid and extensive benefits on the nation.

"I am very confident that I may say in the sincerely in the sentiments expressed at the name of all my brethren, that we participate bar. We all lament the death of Mr. Pinkney, as a loss to the profession generally, and especially to that part of it which is assembled in this room. We lament it, too, as a loss to our country. We most readily assent to the motion which has been made, and shall direct an adjournment till to-morrow at twelve."

The following entry was directed to be made on the minutes of the court:

"The court being informed that Mr. Pinkney, a gentleman of this bar, highly distinguished for his learning and talents, departed this life last night in this city, the judges have spect for his character, and sincere grief for determined, as a mark of their profound rehis loss, to wear crape on the left arm for the residue of the term; and to adjourn for the purpose of paying the last tribute to his remains, by attending them from the place of his death."

After the adjournment of the court, the members of the bar assembled in the courtroom; Mr. Clay was called to the chair, and Mr. Winder appointed secretary.

ster, it was unanimously resolved, that the memOn motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Webbers of this bar, as a mark of their regret for the memory of their deceased brother, the Hon. William Pinkney, and of their deep sense of the loss which the public and the profession have sustained in his death, will attend his funeral in a body, and wear a crape on the left arm during the present

term.

On motion of Mr. Wheaton, seconded by Mr. D. B. Ogden, it was unanimously resolved, that the proceedings of this meeting be signed by the chairman and secretary, and published in the National Intelligencer.

The meeting then adjourned.

"To express our deep sense of this great public and private loss, and as the most appropriate tribute now in our power to offer to the memory of the deceased, I request the court to W. H. Winder, Secretary. 380

H. Clay, Chairman.
Wheat. 7.

OF THE

Supreme Court of the United States.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1822.

A warrant and survey authorize the proprietor of them to demand the legal title, but do not, in themselves, constitute a legal title; until the consummation of the title by a grant, the person who acquires an equity holds a right, subject to examination.

When the register of the land-office of Virginia, had, by mistake, given a warrant for military services in the continental line, on a certificate authorizing a warrant for services in the state line, and in recording it, pursued the certificate, and not the warrant, it was held that this court could not support a prior entry and survey, on a warrant thus issued by mistake, against a senior patent.

Where the plaintiffs seek to set aside the legal title, because they have the superior equity, it is consistent with the principles of the court to rebut this equity by any circumstances which may impair it; and the legal title cannot be made to yield to an equity founded on the mistake of a ministerial officer.

and survey, and obtained a patent therefor in February, 1808.

John Neville made an entry on the same land in May in, 1806, on a military land warrant, for services, in the Virginia continental line; and his heirs, the respondents, obtained a patent therefor on the 30th of April, 1807.

They have brought an ejectment against the heirs of Justus Miller, who having, as they say, the elder equitable, though the junior legal title, have filed this bill to enjoin proceedings at law, and compel Neville's heirs to convey the legal title to them.

In their answer, Neville's heirs assert that Thomas Powell never served in the Virginia continental *line, but that his service was [*3 performed in the state line, and that the certificate of the governor and council, on which the warrant was issued, was expressed to be given for services in the state line, so that the warrant issued fraudulently, or by mistake. They

THIS cause was argued and determined at further insist, that as the officers of the state

the last term, but omitted to be reported.

2*] *Mr. Justice Todd delivered the opinion of the court:

line could not enter their warrants in the district reserved for the continental line, the plaintiffs ought not to be permitted to avail themselves of a title founded in mistake, to defeat their legal title.

On the 29th of May, 1783, Seymour Powell, heir of Thomas Powell, obtained a military The testimony taken in the cause, shows that land warrant from the register's office in Vir- the records of the office of the executive counginia, No. 679, for 2,663 % acres of land "due cil of Virginia have been examined, and that in consideration of services for three years, as no certificate has ever been granted to Seymour a lieutenant of the Virginia continental line, Powell, as the heir of Thomas Powell, for agreeably to a certificate from the governor services in the Virginia continental line, but and council, received into the land-office." A that a certificate was granted to him for milipart of this warrant was entered in the military services for three years in the state line. tary district reserved for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia continental line, on the 16th of June, 1795; and, on the 30th of October, 1796, 789 acres, part thereof was surveyed in the name of the said Seymour Powell, which survey was on the 1st of March, 1797, recorded in the office of the surveyor-general. On the 10th of July, 1800, Justus Miller purchased this land, and took an assignment of the entry

Note.-Letters patent for conveying real estate may be set aside in equity, if obtained by fraud. Atty- Gen. v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 277; Jackson v. Lawton, 10 John. R. 25, 26; Jackson v. Hart, 12 John. R. 77; 2 Bl. Com. 348.

Where a patent for lands is granted by the general government, the court may go behind the patent, on allegations of fraud in the patentee in obtaining the patent, and may examine into the

In the land-office, too, records are to be preserved of all the warrants which issue, and of the certificates on which they issue. This office also has been searched, and no certificate is found of any military service rendered by Thomas Powell, in the Virginia continental line, nor is there on record any warrant for such service; but there is a certificate given to Seymour Powell, for his military service as a equities of other persons entitled or claiming to be entitled to the patent, and may set aside the same if fraudulently obtained. Brush v. Ware, 15 Pet. 93; Boldly v. Taylor, 5 Cranch, 196: Polk v. Wendell, 5 Cranch, 93; 5 Wheat, 293; Hoffnagle v. Anderson, post, 213; 2 N. Y. Rev. St. 578, s. 12: The People v. Clark, 19 Barb. 120; N. Y. Code of Prac. s. 1957.