
    Den on demise of Hunter v. Williams.
    From Hertford.
    An instrument, purporting to be a grant for land, which was under the great seal of the State, was signed by the Governor and recorded in the Secretary’s office, but was not countersigned by the Secretary, will not pass the land, and is void!
    Upon the trial of this ejectment, the Plaintiff offered in evidence an instrument purporting' to be a grant from the State to Blake Baker, (under whom he claimed,) bearing date in flic year 1791, which covered the land in dispute. It was under the great seal of the State, and was signed by Alexander Martin, who was then Governor, and had been recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, and registered in Hertford county, where the land was situate: but it had not been signed by the Secretary of State, nor by any person for him. The Court received it in evidence, but reserved the point whether it was admissible, and the Jury gave a verdict for the Plaintiff. Afterwards the Court decided upon the point reserved, that the said writing was not a good and valid grant, and was therefore inadmissible, and directed the verdict to be set aside, and a nonsuit to be entered : and the Plaintiff appealed to this Court.
    The case was not argued here; and
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Haul, Judge:

To the General Assembly alone belongs the power of disposing of the vacant lands within the boundaries of this State. The Constitution, sec. 36, declares that all grants shall run in the name of the State, and bear test and be signed by the Governor. The year after the adoption of the Constitution, the Legislature at their November session, declares that the Secretary shall make out grants for all surveys returned to his office, which grants shall be authenticated by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary. This is the only mode pointed out by the Legislature, whereby individuals can acquire a right to the unappropriated lands $ and if it be not pursued, no right can be acquired in any other way, sooner than if no mode at all had been pointed out. Nothing, therefore, passed by this instrument; as it is not pretended that Mr. Martin had title individually. The nonsuit must therefore stand, and the judgment be affirmed. 
      
      Act of Assembly, 1777, ch. 1, s. 11.
     