Immune Couar or Pmvyjlwoio; ao;
- 79- i
www l Duxcau veg/io: Wnxsn. 2 Y an aét of Alfembly, pad'ed the arlt of December, 1784 gy A B (2 Vol. p. ag;. ji 9. ro. Dall. Edit.) the right of pre- ‘ emption to lands lying between Lycoming creek on the cali, I and Pine creek on t e welt, &c. was fecured to certain fettlers gy QA and their legal repr¢ntali·ve.r. A pcrfon of the name of Canrjh ASR i bell, bein a fettler within the defcription of the a&, died in ‘ ' ' r78r, before the a& was palled. It appeared that the heir at /3,7 H law had fold the premiles, part of the pre·emptive diItri&, to ty; ll the plaintill, and the adminiltrators of Campbell had fold them 2_ 06- { to the defendant; and both plaintiH·` and defendant had tahen out warrants within the limited time, though neither had ob- tained a patent. Hence the queition arofe at the trial, and was rcferved for the opinion of the Court; whether, the right of . pre-emption granted in the terms of the a&, lhould veil: in the real, or the perfonal, reprefentatives of the grantee? After argument, Tm; Coussr were of opinion, that by the words “ legal reprel'e¤tatives," heirs, or alienees, were tobe underllood ; for, though the exprellion might, in the abltraét, appear equivocal and ambiguous, it was explained by the fuyeél matter; and land, ex vi termini, importing real eltate, the legal rq;»r¢ntative mult, in legal contemplation, be the ‘ heir, and not the adminiltrator. · judgment for the plaintiiiaccordingly. _ FITZALDBN verfiu LEE: . _ ` N Ennox. The plaintiff and defendant having fome contro- __ verfy abouta trait of land, in Luzerne county, agreed to /2 e' try the right to the pollellion in a fummary manner, in the Court [Q , of Common Pleat, and the proceedings were drawn up, as if it had been a plaint under the landlord and tenant a&.* The ]u- · ry having awarded poliiallion to Lee, (the defendant in error,) judgment was rendered for him ; and a writ `of `polfeilion was iiliued, by virtue of which Iiitzalden was turned out, and Lee put into poifcllion. On error being brought, Ingerpll admitted ’ that he could not fupport the judgment ; but contended, that, as this proceeding was a matter of mutual confent and agree- ment, the Court ought not to aid the plaintiff in error to get back the poffellion of the land. . Tub f See 1 Vol. Dall. Edir. p. 6r7.
�
