
    *AT A CIRCUIT COURT, AT PITTSBURGH,
    NOVEMBER 1801.
    CORAM, YEATES AND SMITH, JUSTICES.
    Lessee of John Nicholls against William Lafferty.
    An early settlement, accompanied with a subsequent warrant and survey, is preferable to a prior warrant and survey.
    Evidence of improvements antecedent to the time of interest commencing, as stated in the warrant, shall not be received.
    Ejectment for one messuage and 380 acres in Fayette township.
    The plaintiff claimed under a settlement right originally.
    It appeared that in 1774, the lessor of the plaintiff came upon the land, which was then unappropriated, and did work there. The next year he raised corn on five or six acres which he had cleared, and brought up his mother and sisters in the fall, and they lived together in a cabin on the land, very near the lands in question. He constantly resided on the land since that time, except when the inhabitants were driven off by the Indians. There was a consentable line established between this place and a tract whereon William M'Manimy lived, whose house was about half a mile from this acknowledged boundary.
    Nicholls, on the 22d March 1798, took out a warrant for 380 acres, including his improvement, adjoining lands of the widow-Johnston, &c., interest to commence from the 1st March 1774, and obtained a survey thereon of 380 acres and 48 perches, on the $th September 1799, whereof 108 acres were claimed by William Harvey, which included the lands in dispute, but no one had lived thereon until 1785.
    Referred to in I W. & S. 494.
    Cited in 12 Pa. 91 to show that a warrantee has never been suffered to carry his title back beyond the day assigned by him for the commencement of interest.
    The defendant claimed under a warrant granted to William Harvey, dated 27th July 1785, including an improvement made by William M'Murray, adjoining, &c., interest to commence from 1st March 1780, and a survey thereon of 108 acres, made on the 30th June 1786.
    It was proposed by the defendant’s counsel to examine witnesses as to the improvements made by M‘Murray antecedent to the 1st March 1780, on the lands in question.
    Messrs. Ross and Woods, pro quer.
    
    Mr. Sample, pro def.
    
   Sed per cur.

This point has been so often decided, and even in some cases apparently hard, that we cannot permit it at this time to be debated. The warrant holder has precluded himself from deriving his equitable title of improvement beyond the day called for in his warrant. The decision will conduce to good morals, and serve as an additional proof of the old adage, that honesty is the best policy, and we will not deviate from it.

*But has not enough been shewn, to evince that the ^ plaintiff has the earliest and best possessory right, and [*273 must necessarily recover ? He claims under a bona fide settlement eleven years earlier than the defendant’s warrant, uniformly pursued and continued, which must embrace the 108 acres in dispute. And to this he unites a title by warrant and survey, paying interest to the commonwealth from his first improvement.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff instanter.  