
    *AT A CIRCUIT COURT, AT LEWISTOWN,
    MAY 1802.
    CORAM, YEATES AND BRACKENRIDGE, JUSTICES.
    Lessee of Samuel Simpson against John Williams and James Green.
    A dormant application whereon no survey has been made, is within the limitation act, though the adverse party claiming under the same application has made a survey thereon.
    Ejectment for 358Í acres in Upper Bald Eagle township.
    The plaintiff claimed under an application dated 3d April 1769, No. 794, for 300 acres of land, and a survey thereon of 358^ acres by Charles Lukens, on the 12th March 1775.
    It was incontestibly proved, that the lessor of the plaintiff had applied in the secretary’s office for the location, but he gave no evidence either positive or circumstantial, that he paid the surveying fees, procured the survey to be made, or made any attempt to procure one.
    The defendants, as tenants of Christian Miller and Richard Miles, claimed under the same application and survey, a warrant of acceptance and patent thereon, dated February 1784; a conveyance from a different Samuel Simpson to Henry Funk, of the premises, in consideration of 100L, dated 13th May 1784, and another conveyance from Funk to Christian Miller, in consideration of 106L, dated 4th April 1792.
    It appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff had not claimed these lands till within a few years past; that the survey had been shifted from the lands described in the application; and, from presumptive evidence, that it had been directed by the Simpson under whom the defendants claimed; and that the premises, which in 1784, would not have sold for more than 5s. per acre, would now sell for 45s.
    Mr. Walker, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Duncan and Roberts, pro def.
    
   The court expressed their opinion, that this was a dormant application so far as it respected th'e plaintiff; that it was barred by the limitation act of 26th March 1785, and cited the case of Ewing’s lessee v. Barton, at Nisi Prius in Sunbury, May 1798, as analogous hereto ; and that the defendant’s title gained additional strength from their landlords being considered as bona *fide purchasers of the legal estate, for a valuable consideration *403] without notice.

The plaintiff’s counsel reluctantly suffered a nonsuit.  