
    COURT OF APPEALS,
    NOV. TERM, 1804.
    West vs. Jarrett.
    The decisions of the chancellor as judge of the land office, are not con* elusive, but may l>e reviewed in rhe court of chancery by original bill*
    Apueaí from a decree of the Court of Chancery dismissing the bill of complaint.
    The bill stated, that one Robert Mooberry was possessed, by virtue of a license from the agents of the Lord Proprietary, and a certificate of survey on the same, of a parcel of land lying within the reserves of Harford county, containing 300 acres; and that being so possessed, after the act for confiscating British property, and appointing commissioners to take care of and dispose of the same, a certain Mordecai Jlmos was appointed by the said commissioners tovafue and appraise to the settlers thereon, that part qf the said reserves, in which the land of the said Mooberry had been located. That 300 acres of said land was appraised by Jhnos to one John Welch, acting for Moo-berry, who was absent at the time of the appraisement. That these reserves were afterwards directed to be sold to the settlers under the direction of the in-tendant of the revenue of the state. That the inten-dant gave notice, &c. and attended. That the defendant and Mooberry claimed the land, and that the in-tendant appointed disinterested persons to hear the allegations of the parties, to ascertain to whom the right of pre-emption in their opinion belonged, and to report a state of facts to him. That the persons so appointed, after hearing the allegations, &c. adjudged that the land, (for which Mooberry afterwards returned a certificate to the land office called Norfolk,') did of right belong to Mooberry. That the only contention at that time between said Jarrett and Mooberry was, whether a tract of land patented to Jarrett’s father, and called Buchanan’s Deer Park, included the land possessed by Mooberry, and which he held under a certificate right; and it was then determined, “that “Jarrett should hold all the land included within the “lines of the said patent, and that Mooberry should hold “all such land as was included within his certificate, «‘and which was not within the lines of the said Jar“rett’s patent.” Which decision was then assented to and confirmed by the intendant, and Mooberry then became the purchaser of 300 acres of land more or less, and gave bond, with security, for the same, at the price then agreed on, and obtained a certificate of his purchase from the intendant. That Jarrett at the same time purchased his lands called The Hills of Poverty, containing 1500 acres, which he did not even intimate covered any part of the land claimed and purchased by Mooberry; because he well knew that the possessory right by which he claimed The Hills of Poverty, was of a later date than the possessory right by which Mooberry claimed his land; that is, the certificate of survey made on The Hills of Poverty, under the authority of the proprietary agents, was of a subsequent date by several years to that made, by the same authority, for Mooberry. That Jarrettj notwithstanding, returned a survey on his certificate of The Hi'Is of Poverty, and called the latid so surveyed, Contestable Manor, which survey included Mooberry*s said land called Norfolk. That Mooberry entered a caveat to this certificate of survey Called Contestable Manor. That being a poor man, he could not pay, but was sued for the purchase money due the. state, and the complainant became his special bail. That Mooberry removed to Pennsylvania, and the complainant, having paid the state, obtained an assignment from Mooberry of his said certificate. That on the trial of the caveat before the judge of the land office, owing to want of information of the complainant relative to the transactions, and owing to the misrepresentations of Jarrctt, the caveat was-overruled by (he chancellor as judge of the land office.
    The bill concluded with a' prayer for a decree, to-preclude Jarrett from obtaining a patent upon his certificate of Contestable Manor, until he excludes the land purchased by Mooberry and called Norfolk.
    
    The answer contained a general denial of all the material facts alleged in the bill.
    A variety of proof taken in the cause was exhibited, as also that which had been taken on the trial of ths caveat.
    ■ BaNsoN, Chancellor, (June term Í801.) A very important point has been made by the defendant’s counsel, viz. s‘r5 hat the cause has in effect been already decided by a tribunal competent to decide fully on law and equity, and therefore this court, having no authority to examine the merits of that decision by way of appeal, and being applied to by an original suit, ought to consider itself as concluded by that decision.”
    The chancellor considers himself under no necessity to decide; and therefore does not decide on that point. He is of opinion, that although the complainant had probable grounds for instituting his suit, he has not shewn himself fully entitled to the relief prayed. Hp has not, in short, satisfied the chancellor that be bad an equitable claim to the land comprehefl-tied in the defendant’s patent of Contestable Manot, and that when the defendant obtained his patent, he was apprised of the said equitable claim. Decreed, that the bill be dismissed without costs. From which decree the complainant appealed to this court;
    
      Key and Shaaff, for the Appellant.
    The chancellor as judge of the land office refused West a patent.. He filed his bill -in the court of chancery, and the chancellor decreed against him. The reserves of the Proprietary were leased out on long leases. .After the revolution the property belonging to the Lord Proprietary was confiscated to the slate. By the act of Jlpril 1782, ch. 59, settlers were to have a preference and pre-emption allowed them of the' reserve lands upon which they had settled. Jarrett claimed under a patent for Buchanan’s Deer Park, which did not interfere with Mooberry’s land. West claims under Mooberry. The chancellor as'judge of the land office was not satisfied that West had an equitable claim, and that Jarrett had notice of West’s claim
    The question is, whether or not the determination, of the chancellor, as judge of the land office, is conclusive, and whether or not this court is competent to revise the decision of the chancellor as judge of the land office?
    The act of November 1781, ch. 20, opens the land' office, and vests powers in the chancellor as judge of that office. The determination of tiie chancellor is not conclusive. 1 Burr. 1005. Evan’s Essays, 62. The act of 1785, clu 56, gives the chancellor a summary jurisdiction.
    A decree obtained by fraud may be set aside on an original bill — Com. Big. 100. Eq. M. 19.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General) and Johnson, for the
    Appellee,
    cited Powell, 221, and the acts of 1785, ch. 6s, s. 8, and 1789, ch. S3, s, 4.
    
   The Court oe Appeals,

[Rumsey, Ch. J.

Jones and Dennis, Judges.]

Reversed the decree of the court of chancery, and decreed that the appellee, by a good deed of bargain and sale duly executed, &c. convey to the appellant, and his heirs and assigns, all that tract of land called Norfolk, lying in the reserves of Harford county, the certificate of which was made out for Robert Moberry, by him assigned to the appellant, and is now in the land office, and all the estate, &e. of the said appellee, to any land included within the lines of the said certificate called Norfolk, and not included in an elder grant called Buchanan’s Deer Park; and that the appellant have, hold and enjoy, all the land within the lines of the said certificate called Norfolk, to him and his heirs, except, &c. free and clear of the said appellee and his heirs, Ac, and that the chancellor pass such order, &c.  