
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1794.
    John House’s Lessee against Charles Beatty.
    EJECTMENT for lot No. 61. in George Town, in Montgomery county.
    At the trial of the cause, two bills of exceptions were taken.
    
      By the first, it appears the plaintiff, in order to support the issue on his part, offered to read in evidence to the jury, a paper certified by the clerk of Montgomery county, and under the seal of the county court of the said county, which paper was a statement of the proceedings of commissioners appointed by law, for the purpose of laying out George Town, in Montgomery county, whereby it appeals that lot No. 61. was sold to Joseph Belt, jun. on the 24th of March, 1752, for 30 shillings, on the 27th of June, 1774 ; the lot not having been improved, was sold to Adam Stewart and Thomas Richardson, for 30 shillings, who not improving it, the same was, on the 29th of May, 1782, sold to Charles Beatty for 30 shillings. That on the 12th of June, Charles Beatty paid 30 shillings for the lot, in consequence of the sale of the 29th of May. On the 5th of July, 1784, (previous to which time John House had made application to become the purchaser of the said lot, as forfeited by Charles Beatty,) the question was put “ whether lot No. 61. was improved, on the 29th of 3.lay last, agreeably to law? and whether, as Charles Beatty has proceeded in the improvement of said lot, further indulgence of a short time should be allowed him or not ?” Both questions were determined in the negative by the commissioners. That Charles Beatty, previous to the questions being taken, entered his objections, and notice of his intention to petition the legislature. That on the 25th of September, 1785, on the application of John House, it was unanimously adjudged, by the commissioners, that lot No. 61. was improved agreeably to law. It was also adjudged by them, that it should be entered in their proceedings, that Charles Beatty had improved the said lot. The clerk of the county court certified, “ that the within is a true copy of the proceedings of the commissioners of George Town, with respect to the lot No. 61. taken from their records lodged in my office.”
    The defendant objected to this evidence as incompetent and improper in point of law, to go to the jury.
    
      The Court (Chase, Ch. J. and Goedsborough J.) were of opinion, that the paper offered was legal and competent evidence, and permitted it to be read to the jury. The defendant excepted to this opinion.
    2. By the second bill of exception, it appears that the plaintiff, in addition to the paper mentioned in the first bill of exception, offered parol evidence to prove, that Gharles Beatty applied to the commissioners of George Town, to purchase lot No. 61. as being forfeited under the law, and did purchase the same, and that he did not, within two years after payment of the purchase-money and entry thereof, build such house thereon as the act of assembly requires ; and that the plaintiff applied to the commissioners to purchase the lot, as being forfeited by the said Beatty, and that he became the purchaser thereof from the commissioners, and paid the purchase-money. That within two years after such application, there were such buildings and improvements erected thereon as the law requires; which buildings and improvements were proved to have been made by Beatty, the defendant, who remained in possession of the lot, and continued in the possession thereof from the 29th of May, 1792, until the trial, and the said improve» ments were made by Beatty, adverse to the right of the r
    Whereupon the plaintiff prayed the following opinion and direction of the court to the jury : That if the defendant did not build as the act of 1751, c. 25. directs, within the time limited by the said act, he forfeited all title to the lot No. 61. together with any improvements thereon, and that if he afterwards remained in possession, he was a wrongdoer. That the plaintiff, on his application and payment of the sum required by the act, and entry thereof made as the act directs, became then entitled to, and seised in fe of, the said lot, on condition that if he did not build as the act directs, he forfeited his right; but, that if the defendant prevented House, the plaintiff, by force, and retained possession of the lot, and thereby prevented the plaintiff from making improvements, the forfeiture did not attach against the plaintiff, and that if a building was erected on the lot according to the directions of the act, within the time limited, (i. e. within two years from the time of the application by House, the plaintiff, and the payment of the sum required by the act,) such building will be considered in law a compliance by the plaintiff with the requisites of the act of assembly, and will operate for his benefit, although such building'was erected by Beatty, the defendant, or by any other person.
    
      Martin (Attorney-General) and Gantt, for the plaintiff.
    
      Key and Pinkney, for the defendant.
   The Court

(Chase, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, j.)

did accordingly give the said opinion and direction to the jury as prayed. The defendant excepted to the opinion, and appealed to the court of appeals.

At June term, 1796, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the general court, on both the exceptions.  