
    Lessee of Ephraim Wallace against Thomas Dickey.
    An improvement right, without a previous possession within 7 years before bringing the ejectment, though accompanied by a warrant without survey and a decision of the board of property, nothing being done thereupon after, is barred by the act of limitations of 26th March 1795.
    Ejectment for one messuage and ioo acres of land in Salem township.
    The lessor of the plaintiff settled on the lands in question in 1775, cleared 12 acres and had 26 acres under fence. He continued living in his cabin with his family cultivating the land, until he was driven off by the Indians, with the other inhabitants, in the fall of 1777. He returned in the following year and threshed out his grain. On the 23d February 1785 he took out a warrant for 300 acres, including his improvement adjoining lands of William Dickey, &c. Interest to commence from 1st March 1773. But it did not appear, that he had ever applied for a survey to be made on his warrant, nor was any survey made thereon.
    Joseph Irwin on the 8th November 1784, obtained a warrant for 400 acres including an improvement on the waters of Beaver Dam Run, adjoining lands of David Dickey, &c. Interest to commence from 1st March 1774. A survey of 399 acres, 141 perches was made on this warrant by John Moore, deputy surveyor, on the 18th April 1786, with a note subjoined thereto, that Ephraim Wallace claimed the land under an improvement. Previous thereto,-on the 9th April 1785, Irwin conveyed his right to George Henry in consideration of 250I. On a caveat filed against the survey made under Irwin’s warrant, the board of property decided on the 5th March 1792, that 200 acres of the survey should be returned on the warrant of- Wallace, and the residue for Henry under the warrant of Irwin. No return was made for Wallace, nor any application by him made for that purpose. In 1794, Wallace put one Robert White as a tenant on part of the land, and who continued thereon since, but there had been an adverse possession against him by the present defendant, before this ejectment was brought, for 10 years.
    Two days before the present jury was sworn, an ejectment *came on for trial between the lessee of George Henry r*. „ and the said Robert White. No evidence of any im- L 4 provement or settlement was shewn previous to the date of Irwin’s warrant, and the evidence of a settlement by Wallace as above stated being given, the court were of opinion, that although he had the later warrant, yet his bona fide settlement entitled his tenant to a verdict; and the plaintiff in that cause suffered a nonsuit.
    Messrs. Sample and Armstrong, pro qtier.
    
    Messrs. Young and A. Morrison, pro def.
    
   The court were clearly of opinion, that the now plaintiff was barred by the act of limitations of the 26th March 1785, (2 Dall. St. Laws 282.) Here was no quiet and peaceable possession under his prior settlement within seven years next before bringing this action; no survey was had under his warrant, nor any return under the decision of the Board of Property. A case somewhat similar occurred at Dauphin in Sturgion’s lessee v. Waugh at Nisi Prius in October 1799, wherein the court expressed the same opinion.

Plaintiff nonsuit.  