
    Singery vs. The Attorney-General.
    Where a court of law admitted evidence to prove that a certificate of survey was forged, such evidence could have been deemed admissible, only on the ground, that if the certifícate was proved to he forged, the grant obtained on it was fraudulent, ami could have no operation ui law to oas\ the land to the grantee
    Fraud may be inquired into as well at. law as in equity; aud where frauds are clearly cstabl idled, Che courts of law and of equity have eoncimvnt jimsdiei ion.
    Where the fact of the forgery of a certificate of survey, under the grant on uhieh the defendant claimed, came before the court and jury collaterally, and was not directly in question, the issue be* fween the parties being, who had the vi^nt of possession to the land in eontrovenj, the veuliet in favour of the uyfcsdaiUj cannot bo received as evidence to pro retlm the cerafitauí was not forged»
    A ppeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill filed in the name of the Attorney-General, at the relafcirm of Ezekiel Barcing, on the 19th of November 1799* that in the year 1770, the surveyor of Baltimore county, being directed by the commissioners of the Lord J Proprietary to suryey and lay out, for any persons that might apply to him, any part of the Reserve land in that county, to enable them to contract with the commissioners for the purchase of such land, James Cdlder, as surveyor of the county, by virtue of the power and authority from the commissioners, did, on the SOtli of September 1770, survey and lay out for Sing cry, (the appellant,) a tract of land in the Ileserve called Singery’s Trouling Streams, containing 178 acres, and included within the courses and distances described in a certificate of the courses, taken from the original entry in the surveyor’s books, &c. “Beginning at two bounded white oaks standing between two barren hijis, at the end of the last line of a tract called Merry man’s Mown tain, (included,) and about W 9 perches from George’s Run, and running thence,” (nineteen courses and distances, without calls,) “and thence with a straight line to the beginning, containing 178 acres, and called Singery’s Trouling Streams. September 30th 1770.” That the certificate made out by Colder, as surveyor of the county, for Singery’s Trouling Streams, to be returned to the land office, corresponded in alt respects with the record of the courses kept by the surveyor himself as above described, but that Singary combining, &c. bow to impose upon and defraud the Proprietary out of his land, and the purchase money which he would otherwise be entitled to, returned to the land office a certificate of the courses of Singery’s Trouling Streams different from that which was made out by the surveyor, as wilt more fully appear by the certificate and plot of the land recorded in the land office. That in the. true and genuine certificate of Singery’s 
      
      TroUiing Streams, there is no call for “the beginning treés of Petticoat’s Loose,” but that the certificate returned to . . the land office by Singery, has tins expression, widen the relator expressly states was forged and inserted by Singery for the purpose of extending the twelfth line of the trad, and thereby taking in more land than he was entitled to. That by the certificate, as made out by Calder before mentioned, Singery’s Trouting Streams is made to contain 178 acres, but that by the certificate returned to the land office by Singery, that tract, by virtue of the call above mentioned, contains 560 acres, as Singery contends, though the certificate expresses only 178 acres, as will appear by a plot of the land exhibited, and which was made out and returned by the surveyor of Baltimore county to the general court, in an action of ejectment therein depending for the land between the relator’s lessee and Singery. That Singery, oti the 20th of April 1775, obtained a patent on the said forged certificate, and thereby got 382 acres of land more than he was entitled to, or compounded for with the Proprietary, or his agents. That by virtue of two special warrants obtained from the land office in the year 1793s the relator had surveyed for him, by the surveyor of Haiti?nore county, 300 acres of land, called Boreing’s Habitation Rode, and returned a certificate thereof, and that afterwards, on the 24th of April 1795, a patent issued to him for the same. That the land taken up, and paid for by him, called Boreing’s Habitation Rock, is claimed by Singery under fhe false and forged certificate and patent thereon, as will fully appear by the plot before referred tó; and that Singery has possession of the land, and holds it as being within the lines of Singery’s Trouting Streams. But the relator expressly charges, that he has instituted art ejectment in the general court against Singery to recover the land, and obtained a verdict and judgment in his favour, from which decision Singery has appealed to the court of appeals; and he is apprehensive that the said impositions and forgery will be productive of endless controversies and disputes between him and Singery, unless it can be corrected by this court. That by the plot returned to the land office, with the certificate on which the patent is- - sued, it is obvious that Singery’s Trouting Streams, (which included two old surveys, namely Petticoat’s Loose and 
      Merryman’s Mountain and a very small piece of vacancy,) could not contain more than 178 acres, as mentioned in the certificate, because bv the plot it appears that Pettiboat's Loose, and Merryman s Mountain, were almost contiguous and adjoining tracts, and there was only a small vacancy between them,* but by extending the twelfth line of Singery’s Troutlng Streams to the surreptitious ‘'beginning trees of Petticoat’s Loose,” as now contended for by Singery, there will be created a vacancy of 382 acres between the two tracts, which the relator contends is not the fact, but that it is an imposition in Singery.' That at .the time Singery’s Fróutiñg Streams Vas surveyed, there was a rule or law of the land office prohibiting the surveyors from expressing calls in any certificates of surveys made by them under any warrant from that office* and that the call in the certificate of Singery’s Troutlng Streams, is iri direct violation of that rule* as will appear by recurring to the rules of the land office, and by the deposition of Colder, the surveyor, now filed. Prayer, that the certificate and patent of Singery’s Troutlng Streams ‘ may be vacated, or corrected, so as to exclude the call,and" restrict Singery to the bourses and distances specified in the certificate, and for further relief, &e. The answer of Singery, the defendant, states that, commissioners were appointed by the Lord Proprietary to.make sale of his reserved lands* or of parts thereof, and.tke defendant b'eing in possession of two surveys within the reserves of Baltimore county* the on'e called -Merryman’s Mountain, and the other called Petticoat’s LooéC; purchased the same of the commissioners, and he believes the two parcels of land were reduced into one entire tract under the authority of Colder, but not by him, for ífié defendant states that his survey and certificate were made out by a deputy of Colder, who usually ntade the surveys in the reserves of Baltimore. That his object in the purchase and survey was to join his two tracts* and á Survey he admits was made called Singery’s Fronting Streams, and returned to the office, on which patent afterwards.issued to the defendant. That he does not know, nor was he ever privy, to any fraud or deception in makiitg the survey or c'ertificate of that land* nor does he know* admit or believe, there was any. He admits the call hi the certificate greatly increases the quan tity of his land, but he states the calí was essentíaíly ne= cessary to join his two tracts together, which was the ohject of his purchase, and if the surveyor mistook the length of line, or rpiantity of acres, it was not with the consent, knowledge or privity, of' the defendant. He does not believe the certificate recorded in Colder’s book to be a true copy of his certificate; and that Colder is grossly mistaken in two important tacts, and those facts are misconceived and mistaken in the bill of complaint. That Colder never did make out or sign a certificate of Siagery’s Trouting Streams for the office, but that the same was made out, signed and returned, by the deputy, and is now in the office, and it was usual and customary for Codder’s deputy so to do with his assent, as will appear by a great number of original certificates in tire land office, made out at the very period when the defendant’s was, and some of them on Surveys made in the reserves. That the certificate returned to the office is the true and genuine certificate of Singcry’s Trouting Streams, which was made out' for, and delivered to him as such, by Colder in person, to whom the defendant carried it, and the sam,e fias, a call to the beginning trees of Petticoat’s Loose, which was a well known place, and intended to be run to and called for; and the defendant can prove, that on the original survey made, the beginning trees of Petticoat’s Loose were actually run to, and he offered such evidence on the trial of the ejectment cause referred to by the bill of complaint, which testimony the general court refused to admit. The defendant does not pretend to know what inay have been the rules of the land office at that time as to the calls, but Colder is mistaken iu hi$ deposition filed, fiepguse there are many certificates in tjie office made put and signed by him, of surveys at that time of reserve lands similar to the defendants, in which Colder hath inserted calks. The defendant denies all fraud, combination, «tic. That the call in his certificate and patent were of such notoriety, and his possession of, and the beginning trees of Petticoat’s Loose were so well known to the neighbourhood, and ta the surveyors in the county, that younger surveys Were made, which called for and run with the line apd to the call mentioned in the defendant’s patent, as is demonstrated by the location of the-tract of land called Horatio’s. Lot, on the plot filed. That the defendant, actuated by the most honest principles, made a resurvey on his land m 
      1792, and included the whole of his lands, and returned a certificate to the office, and the excess of the number of acies was ca^ec^ surplus; that he was willing to pay for it, and made his resurvey with that intent, but by reason of the act of 1785, ch. 81, the treasurer could not receive such payment, and it was not until after this transaction that the relator, combining and leaguing with Calder, who to cover his own negligence and malconduct in office, combined with the relatar to cheat the defendant out of his land, and recommended the relator to take up the surplus as vacancy, which Calder was to support, by throwing all blame on bis deputy, although the records of the land office falsify the oath of Calder in two essential facts; first, they show that it was customary for his deputies to make out certificates and sign his name; and secondly, that he himself, in certificates made o.ut and signed by him, did give calls. He admits the action of ejectment instituted jn the general court by the less.ee of the relator, for recovery of part of the defendant’s land, included in the relator’s tract called Boreing’s Habitation Rock, but the facts never came to issue; that the case was determined on a point pf law, tp which a bill of exceptions was taken, and the judgment of the court was appealed from, and the appeal will go up to the court pf appeal? in June next. He does not believe the relator is entitled ip any court oflaw or equity to a vacation of the defendant’s original grant, the same can only, originate in a desire to ruin and oppress the defendant; because if the relator ultimately succeeds in the court of appeals, a decree to convey all the defendant’? right and title tp the relator, in fee, of all the land contained in his patent of Boreing’s Habitation Rock, will be sufficient. He further states, that he claims the whole of the land included in his patent called Sing cry’s Trouiing Streams; that the call- was an hqne?t one; that the tracts of land called Merryman’s Mountain and Petticoat’s Loose, never did lay contiguous or close to each other, but always lay, were located and held, as by the table of course? thereof on the plot filed; that the survey was made by a deputy of Calder named Jam.es Hall, who made out the certificate,as was common with Calder’s deputies ip the reserves, and that Calder did not himself make the same out; and the defendant believes the mistake exists on Calder’s books; that the entry was mq.de therein firorp the deputy’s field note^ and the call omitted to be inserted; that the calf did exist. In the original, and was actually bona fide run to at the time of the survey; and the defendant ought not to lose his J n , land from the fraud, negligeiice or mistake, ol Calder and his deputies.
    
      The court not having directed the jury that if they found the certifícate forged, that, nothing pass» Q<\ hy the grant, it «nay be questioned, whether the verdict could conclude the plaintiff if the tact of lurgery had been directly in H ue. , , , _ _
    , On a hill in chancery f>r vaca'mg a certificate of survey and grant, on the ground ot Irautl* cominiUeii hy a forgery of the certificate— Held, that the court of chancery had .jurisdiction although the question of forgerv of the same certificate had, in au action of ejectment between the same parties come collaterally ‘before a court of law and jury, and altfiough that court admitted evidence to es* tablish the forgery, ami the jury gave their verdict in favour of the defendant, who claimed under the certificate alleged to be forged.
    AUlmugíi on a lull in chancery charging tovgery, the defendant cannot be compelled to answer >y fact which will criminate himself, yet that court has jurisdiction over the case; and on proof id of the forgerv, by which a fraud has been commithvl, will grant reuef by vacating the grant, &e. from whence the injury has arhen, or will make such decree as the circumstances of the case render nu*
    forgery of a certificate of survey, and the fraud consequent thereon, being Decretal bv the court of chancery, that the defendant, (claiming under such certificate and the grant thereon,) should convey to the complainant all that part of the laud held by the defendant under: tueb grant, and which is comprehended in the lines of the tract of land granted to the complainant.
    
      The testimony of a number of witnesses was taken under commissions and returned. The defendant after-wards by his petition, (referring to the proceedings herein set forth, and t.o the action of ejectment depending between the parties,) stated that the judgment of the general court in that fiction bad been reversed in the court of appeals, ami the record returned to the general court, with a procedendo directing a new trial. That since this.cause has been set down for heaving in this court, the action of ejectment remanded to the general court for a new trial, has been tried, and a verdict rendered in favour of the defendant. (ante, 455.) That on that trial, the general court gave a direction to the jury, that if the certificate of Singery’s Trouting Streams was forged, that the patent thereon issued was void, or an opinion to that effect. But on a full and fair trial before the jury, a verdict was rendered in favour of the defendant, by whicji the fairness of the certificate, and validity of the patent was ascertained. That inasmuch as these facts have happened since this cause has been set down for hearing in this court, hp is apprehensive that he will not be able to avail himself thereof, without the order of this court. Prayer for liberty to exhibit as proof the record of the proceedings in the ejectment, and that the same may be taken as part of the proceedings in this cause.
    Hanson, Chancellor, (December 6, ¡80.5.) The chancellor has considered the petition of the defendant. It appears to him convenient to both parties in this cause to grant the prayer of the petition, instead of having proceedings, which would have the same effect as is proposed by the petition, and would be attended with delay and expense. It is therefore ordered, that the prayer be granted; and that the record of the proceedings in the ejectment, .stated in the petition, be filed in this cause, and taken as part of the proceedings therein.
    The record was accordingly filed; and the case was argued, and submitted to the chancellor for his decision.
    
      Kilty, Chancellor, (July term, 1806.) The object of the bill, is, that the certifícate and patent of Singtry,s Twitting Streams, therein mentioned to have been frauda0p-¡5)jne,]s may be vacated and annulled, or corrected In tb.e manner stated.
    ft was filed on the 19th of November If99, at which time the bill states, Boraing had obtained a verdict and judgment in bis favour in an ejectment foy the land, from Which Singcry had appealed.
    ()n the 13th of November 1805, a petition was presented to the late chancellor by Sin.gery, stating the verdict and appeal, apd also, stating that the judgment had been reversed, and that on the suit-' beiug again tried, a verdict Was rendered in his favouy, and praying that the record of the proceedings, in the ejectment might be taken as part of the proceedings in this cause; which prayer was granted, as appears by the order of December 6ih, 1805.
    The proceedings have accordingly been filed, and from their connexion with the other testimony, the chancellor has felt considerable difficulty in forming his opinion.
    He was at first persuaded that this verdict was either conclusive as to. tbe question of fraud, or of such weight qs to, prevent his drawing a different conclusion from the whole of the evidence. The authorities on this subject are not very clear. The case nmst ill favour of this position, is Underwood vs. Morduanf, 2 frernon, 238, in which the court declared, that the question was,- whether an as-signo.'ent was fraudulent or not; and that having been tried at law there was no room for equity to interfere; that if they should relieve the plaintiff, they must declare that not to be fraudulent in equity which was found to be so at law.
    . Hut on farther consideration he has changed his opinion» on the following grounds:- That the suit in this case re-t Peeved to, having been an ejectment, the verdict is not final between the parties, but another ejectment may be brought, Cn s\ich further suit the verdict may be given in evidence as the opinion qf twelve men on the fact, but it cannot be conclusive, as that would be to defeat the object of th? suit.. And if in a court -of law the question of fraud may be again examined, it cannot he closed against a court of equity, in which fraud is the great subject of relief.
    it must be admitted also, that the record, which is thus •¡nade part of the proceedings, cannot have a greater effeqi in bar to this suit, than if it had beep used as a plea-
    
      A decree determining the rights of the parties might uB pleaded to this bill, and so might a judgment.of a court of law, ihit it must be a judgment which ii&s finally determined the rights of the parties.
    The chancellor, considering himself thus empowered to inquire inio the fraud alleged in the bill, is satisfied from the evidence, (notwithstanding th'e verdict shewing the ¡opinion of the jury to the contrary,) that the charge is established, and that the complainant is entitled to relief!
    fn addition to the particular object of the bilí, as herein before slated, there is a prayer for general relief, find Boreing, at whose relation the bill is filed, is satisfied that Singery s patent should remain valid for such part of the land as is not included in the patent fot Boreing's ItaJbiíaiion Bock; and it appears that for so much the public has been paid by Singery. li is therefore considered propel-in this case, and conformable to the practice in similar cases, to decree a conveyance from Singery of the part claimed by Boreing, instead of vacating the patent to Singery, as prayed. Decreed, that Singery do, by a gdo<l and sulficient deed, &c. give, grant, &c. to Boreing, and his heirs* all that part of the lamí iti Baltimore county, now held by him under his patent for a tract of land called Singery'» 'Drouting Streams, vhich is comprehended in the lines of a tract of land called Boreing'» Habitation Bock, which was granted by this state to Ezekiel Boreing on the 2-Jth of April 1795, beginning, &c. with all and singular the appurtenances, &c. and all the right, title and interest, of Singery, therein and thereto. Arid upon the due execution and acknowledgment and recording of the deed, Boreing shall be entitled to hold the same free, clear and discharged, from all claim of the defendant. And that the defendant pay to the complainant tile costs of this •suit, &c. From this decree the defendant appealed tor Ahis court.
    The cause was argued before Chasis, Ch. J. Gantt., .¡and Earle, J»
    
      Shciaff, and Johnson, (Attorney-General,) for the Appellant,
    cited Underwood vs. Morduant, 2 Vern. 238. Bright vs. Eynon. 1 Burr. 376. Fermor's case, 3 Coke, 78. 1 Fonbl. 13, (notes.) Moses vs. Macferlan, 2 Burr, 1009; and Negro James vs. Gaither, (ante. 176.)
    
    
      
      Martin and T. Buchanan, for the Appellee,
    cited Gainsborough vs. Gifford, 2 P. Wms. 425. Kent vs. Bridgman, Pre. in Chan. 233. Faulconberg vs. Pierce, Ambl. 210. Stace vs. Mabbott, 2 Ves. 552. Matthews vs. Warner, 4 Ves. 206. The Proprietary vs. Jennings, 1 Harr. & M'Hen. 92. Russell & Lux vs. Falls, 3 Harr. & M'Hen. 457. The State vs. Reed, 4 Harr. 4 M‘Hen. 6; and Garetson vs. Cole, 1 Harr. & Johns. 370.
    
      
      
        ■faj Tide 4 Harr. tí M'lkiu 398,
    
   Chase, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. In the ejectment brought by the lessee of Boreing, for Boreing’s Habitation Rock, against Singéry, the question in issue between the parlies, on the different locations on the plots, was, who was entitled to that part of Borcing’s Habitation Rock which was covered by or included within Singcry’s Trovling Streams? This question might have been decided on the different certificates and grants of the parties, and such evidence as might have ascertained what was the true location of the respective tracts claimed by the litigating parlies. It appears by the record and testimony in this case, that the certificate and grant of Singe« ry’s Fronting Streams are older than the certificate and grant ot Boreing’s Habitation Rock, and would have a preference, so far as the conflicting grants interfered.

To repel the defendant’s defence, and to impeach his-title, the plaintiff offered to prove, that the certificate of Singery’s Fronting Streams was forged, and the evidence for that purpose was admitted by the' court; and such evidence could not have been deemed admissible by the court, only on the ground that if it was proved to be forged, the grant obtained on it was fraudulent, and could not have' any operation in law to pass the land to the defendant.That decision must rest on the principle, that what commences in iniquity must transmit its impure or deleterious-quality to the grant which was intended to perfect or complete the title of the party, and will invalidate it, unless the Proprietary was apprised of the nial-practice before the issuing the grant. The evidence in a court of law,- and in a court of equity, to impeach them, is the same* parol evidence being admissible in both — the effect and final result is the same. In chancery the patent is- vacated, and the judgment and decree are declared tobe nullities, and the party is enjoined from proceeding further on them. Is a court oF law, the judgment is tíiát they cannot and da not transfer or pass any right or interest. lit d court of law, the mode of examination is'preferable, be* . . r . . ;. . Cause the evidence is better sifted, and ihore critically inquired into, and the credit of the witnesses is better tested. Where frauds áre clearly established,1 the courts of law arid a court of chancery have concurrent jurisdiction. Ill Some cases it may bd necessary to resort to a court of chancery to compel á discovery of facts and circumstances, which are confined to the knowledge of the parties, in order to prove a fraud; which, it is believed, is the only reason why the applications áre more frequent, in cases of fraud, to the court of chancery* than to a court of law. If the evidence was iriiproperly admitted because the" Operation of a grant cannot bd questioned in' a court of law for fraud in obtaining it,- then the verdict of the jury, finding for the defendant, cannot conclude the' plaintiff as to the fact whether the certificate wás forged or not. But what principle is it which allows a court of law to be competent to inquire into fraud and collusion in obtaining a judgment or decree, and to declare such judgment or decree inoperative to pass any right or interest, which does not extend to a patent? A judgment or decree must stand on as high authority as a patent. In this case the fact of forgery came before the court arid jury collaterally, and was not directly in question, the issue between the parlies being, who liad the right of possession to tlie land in controversy? and therefore the verdict cannot be received as evidence to prove that the certificate was not forged. It may very well be questioned, as the court were not called on, arid did not direct the jury if they found the certificate forged* that nothing passed by the patent; and as the jury might suppose, notwithstanding the certificate was forged, that the prior grant ought to prevail, and could not be' affected by it, Whether the verdict Could conclude the plaintiff if the fact of forgery had been directly in issue.

Although on a bill in chancery charging forgery, the de« fendatit cannot be compelled to answer any fact which will criminate himself, yet the court of chancery has jurisdiction over the easel and on proof of the forgery, by which a fraud has been committed, will grant lelief by vacating the grant or deed from whence the injury has arisen, or will make such decree as the circumstance's of the case fendef necessary.

The coijrt

aré of Opinion, that the forgery of the certificate of Singefy's Trending Streams, and the fraud consequent thereon, have been fully established, and affiroi the decree of the court of chancery, with costs to the appellee.

Gantt, J. dissented.

DECREE affirmed?  