
    *AT A CIRCUIT COURT, AT HUNTINGDON,
    MAY, 1803.
    CORAM, YEATES AND SMITH, JUSTICES.
    Lessee of Daniel Gripe against Reverend David Baird.
    A survey made by a succeeding deputy surveyor on a warrant directed to his predecessor in the same district, may be supported under the practice. But a survey on a warrant unsigned by the governor for the time being, unless money has been paid thereon to the receiver general previously, is invalid.
    Ejectment for lands in Allegheny township.
    The plaintiff claimed under a warrant issued to Samuel Smith, for 100 acres in the forks of the north branch near the mouth of Beaver Dam, about 3 or 4 miles from James Lowrey’s dated 3d February 1755 ; upon which a survey of 1.18 acres, and allowance was made on the 3d December 1774, by Thomas Smith, esq. (D. S.)
    The original warrant directed to Richard Tea, the former deputy surveyor of the district, and endorsed by Mr. T. Smith, “executed 3d December 1774, Spring Meadow,” together with two other office copies of the warrant, were severally unsigned by the governor.
    Cited in 2 S. & R. 559; 7 S. & R. 336.
    Mr. Smith was examined as a witness, and proved that it was the uniform practice for succeeding deputy surveyors to execute warrants directed to their predecessors, without a new direction for that purpose; and such survey had been invariably received in the surveyor general’s office; but having made the survey, Mr. Smith declined sitting as a judge in the case.
    Messrs. Duncan and Riddle, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Hamilton and Walker, pro def
    
   After the testimony was closed, Yeates, Just, interrupted the defendant’s counsel who were opening their defence. He said, Judge Smith’s testimony had fully obviated one difficulty which presented itself, respecting the survey; but he thought it impossible to support the survey, unless the original warrant had been signed by the governor for the time being, as the chief commissioner of the Board of Property, or money had been paid thereon to the receiver general. The objection however appearing to be a surprise on the plaintiff’s counsel, which they were unprepared to meet or answer, he recommended that a juror should be withdrawn, on the lessor of the plaintiff paying the costs of the court.

This recommendation was agreed to, and the plaintiffs counsel ^engaged to discontinue the suit before the next court, unless it could be proved that money had been paid to [*529 the receiver general on the warrant, previous to the survey.  