
    Den on demise of Hardy v. Jones.
    From Washington.
    In-cjeclment, the lessor of the Plaintiff claimed title under a grant describing the lands as confiscated lands, the property of A. Bl It is incumbent on him to shew that the lands had been confiscated, to authorise the issuing of the grant. For the grant shews the title was once out of the'State, and accounts for its being again in the State, by averring the fact of confiscation. This fact must be proved, otherwise it docs not appear that the State had any authority to make the grant.
    The lessor of the Plaintiff'claimed title under a grant from the State, by which the lands in question were granted to him as confiscated lands, the property of Governor White; and it was objected by the Defendant, that it was incumbent on him to prove that the land had been confiscated, to authorise the issuing of the grant. The presiding Judge overruled the objection, and,there was a verdict for tiie Plaintiff. A rule for a new trial being obtained, the same was sent to this Court.
   By tiik Court.

it appears from the Plaintiff’s own shewing, that the title to the lauds was once out of the State and in Governor White. The State cannot resume this title at her pleasure, and pass it by grant to the lessor of the Plaintiff; nor has she pretended to do such an act 5 but in the grant she declares that the lands of Governor White had been confiscated, and the title to them vested in her by the confiscation. If this bo true, the State had a right to grant the lands to the lessor of the Plaintiff; but if not true, the State had no such right. The fact of confiscation is therefore necessary to be proved, before any validity can attach to this grant. The rule for a new trial must be made absolute.  