
    APRIL TERM, 1752,
    Lib. E. J. No. 14. fol. 309.
    Samuel Thomas’s Lessee against John Hamilton.
    EJECTMENT for a tract of land called His Lordship’s Manor of Susqnehannah, or New C'onnaugh, lying in Cecil County, containing 540 acres. Verdict for the defendant,
    At the trial of the cause, two bills of exceptions were taken:
    1st. The plaintiff produced a lease of the premises in the declaration, made by Benjamin Tasker, Esquire, as agent of the Lord Proprietary, dated the 24th December, 1748, purporting - to be “between Benjamin Tasker, Esquire, “ agent and receiver-general of the Right Plonourable the “ Lord Proprietary of Maryland., &c. for and on behalf of “ the said Lord Proprietary of the one part, and Samuel ^ Thomas, junior, of Cecil County, of the other part,” and reciting, that the said Tasker “ is fully authorised and 66 empowered by the said Lord Proprietary to demise,” See. The said 84 Tasker, in consideration of the rents and u covenants, &c. to be paid and performed by the said i( Thomas, hath, with the consent and approbation of S'aw muel Ogle, Esquire, testified by his signing and sealing u these presents, demised, &c. unto the said Samuel Thou mas all that tract or parcel of land being part of His Lord-u ship's Manor ofSusquehannah, alias New Connaught, begin-M ning, &c. containing 540 acres, &c. To have and to hold;, u &Ck to the said Samuel Thomas, his executors, administraM tors, and assigns, for and during the natural life of the said u Thomas, also of Richard Thomas, also of John Thomas, “ junior, yielding and paying an annual rent of 4h Is. ster48 ling to the Lord Proprietary, &c. Renewable during 66 the lives of the heirs of the said Samuel Thomas, upon “ payment of the like rent,” &c.
    The plaintiff also produced a grant or patent to Francis Wright in fee, dated the 19th September, 1659, for a tract of land called Clay fall, containing 500 acres.
    It was also proved, that the premises mentioned in the lease to be demised to the lessor of the plaintiff were the same lands which were granted to the said Francis Wright» It was also proved, that Francis Wright, in the year 1667, died seised of the premises in the declaration, without heirs, whereby the land escheated to the Lord Proprietary.
    Whereupon the defendant produced and offered in evidence, two grants or patents made to George Talbot, Esquire, in fee, of the Manor of Susquehannah, alias Con-naught, which grant purports to be for “ 32,000 acres of u land called Susquehannah, lying in Cecil County>” dated the 11th June, 1680. Also offered in evidence a grant of confirmation for the said land called “ Susquehannah Ma= “ nor,” alias “ New Connaught Manor,” containing 32,000 acres, dated the 22d March, 1683.
    
      It was also proved, that the premises mentioned in the declaration, in the lease, and also in the grant to Francis Wright, are included within the bounds of the Manor of Susquehannah, granted to George Talbot.
    
    To which the plaintiff by his counsel objected, and insisted, that the grant to George Talbot could not nor ought to operate upon the lands in the declaration, so as to convey the same to the said George Talbot, the lands being escheat; and thereupon prayed the opinion of the Court, who declared their opinion that the said two last mentioned grants did operate to convey the premises in the declaration mentioned to the said George Talbot. To which the plaintiff excepted.
    2. The defendant, to shew that the Lord Proprietary, before the deed purporting a lease from Benjamin Tasker as agent of the Lord Proprietary to the lessor of the plaintiff, had divested himself of the lands mentioned in the lease, produced and read to the Jury the patent from the Lord Proprietary to George Talbot, within the bounds of which patent the said lands were comprised; Whereupon the plaintiff produced and read to the Court and Jury an exemplification, under the great seal of the colony of Virginia, purporting a conviction of and judgment against the said George Talbot, for stabbing, contrary to the form of the statute, a certain Christopher Rousby, in 1684, on board of his Majesty’s ketch the Quaker, riding in the Capes of Virginia, at a General Court held at James City, in the Colony of Virginia, on the 20th of April, 1686. The record also states, that the said Talbot, on the 20th April, 1687, presented his Majesty’s most gracious pardon, which was received.
    Whereupon the defendant, by his counsel, objected to the Court, that the conviction and judgment aforesaid was absolutely void and of no effect in law; and the Court declared themselves of that opinion, and directed the Jury accordingly. To which the plaintiff excepted.
    
      The Court in this case being in doubt whether the power from the proprietor to the agent under the great seal, gives the agent an authority to lease, or dispose of an estate for lives under yearly rent, in forfeited or escheat lands, refer the same for consideration, and if they shall be of opinion in the affirmative, then the case is with the plaintiff; but if in the negative, then with the defendant.
    Judgment for the defendant.
    The plaintiff appealed; and the Court of Appeals, at February Term, 1755, reversed the judgment of the Pro» vincial Court*
    
      Darnall and Bordley, for appellant.
    
      Tilghman, for appellee.
   The following note of this case is taken from the note» book of Samuel Chase, Esquire, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States;

“ The dispute in the case of Lee v* Hamilton was about “ Talbot's Manor; and the principal question was, whether 44 Talbot's Manor, granted to George Talbot, was not for» u feited to the Proprietary, on conviction, in Virginia, of M stabbing Christopher Rousby in Maryland. The Pro» 4‘ vincial Court held the conviction to be void. The judga ment was reversed^  