
    Brown vs. Mitchell.
    
      EjcShnent. r"i''HE leffor of plaintiff recovered at the lait Dutchefs Circuit on title exifting prior to 1776, and the defendant fet up title derived from the State, under a fale by the Commiffioners of forfeitures, prior to 1782, and under the Aft paffed October 22ft, 1799, entitled, iS An Aft for the forfeiture and fale of the eftates “ of perfons who have adhered to the enemies of “ this State, and for declaring the fovereignty of “ the people of this State, in refpeft to all property “ within the,fame,”
    The Attorney General for the defendant, now moved for the appointment of appraifers under the firft feftion of the Aft paffed May 12th, 1784, entitled, “ An Aft for the fpeedy fale of the confif- “ cated and forfeited eftates within this State, and “ for other purpofes therein mentioned,” to afcer-tain what improvements the plaintiff muft pay before he can take poffeffion.
    
      Evertfon contra. The Aft of 1784 cannot apply to fales made prior to it.
    The Attorney General in reply, cited the 10th feftion of the Aft paffed May ift, 1786, entitled, “ An Aft further to amend an Aft entitled, An “ Aft for the fpeedy fale of the coníifcated and for-f£ feited eftates within this State, and for other pur-pofes therein mentioned,”
   Per Curiam,

The Afil laft cited is retrofpeclive, and affefils prior titles, and fo Courts have con-fidered them.

Let the defendant take the effefit of his motion.  