How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 April 1763, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 April 1763
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 6
- Judges
- William Allen, Chief Justice, William Coleman, Justice.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Decided
- 1763-04-01
Headnote
APRIL TERM, 1763. William Allen, Chief Justice, William Coleman, Justice. The Lessee of Fothergill and others v. Christian Stover. Evidence. A letter from the secretary of the land-office to a deputy-surveyor, stating that James Logan had agreed that A should have 600 acres at C., and requesting him to survey it to A.; and a plot of survey made in pursuance thereof, not returned into office, but found among the papers of the deputy, after his death, admitted in evidence. A Letter from James Steel, receiver-general and secretary of the land-office, to the surveyor-general’s deputy in Chester county, in these words . “ Friend Isaac Taylor. Philadelphia, 3d, 2nd mo., 1719. — James Logan has agreed that the bearer hereof, William Willis, shall have 500 acres of land at Conestogoe. Please to survey it to him, and the warrant shall be ready. —Thy loving friend, *James Steel,” offered to be given evidence at the foundation of the defendant’s title. Objected on the part of the plaintiff, that James Steel, by his order only, without a warrant from the proprietors, or the commissioners of property, could not authorize the location of lands; and even supposing it to amount to an order from James Logan himself, as he was only one of three commissioners, such order cannot be a sufficient warrant.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.464 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
¶ 1[majority]
¶ 2But the Court said, that under these sort of orders from the proprietor’s officers, a great part of the province had been settled, and mat for the general convenience they had been heretofore allowed to be given in evidence, and particularly in McLowell's case. In that case, last April term, a letter from Richard Peters, secretary of the land-office, to the same effect as the above, was allowed ; and the letter in this case was accordingly ruled to be given in evidence. A plot of a survey, made in pursuance of the above letter, in Isaac Taylor’s own handwriting, with a note at the bottom thus, “ Sur. 9ber 10. 1720,” and in the body of it, the words “William Willis, 400 acres,” not returned into the surveyor-general’s or secretary’s office, but found among Isaac Taylor’s land papers, many years after his death, was allowed to be given in evidence, against a regular warrant and survey, ¡posterior to the above — a settlement and possession being proved to have been made — the first survey amounting to an impropriation, and the land-office appearing to have been shut between the years 1718 and 1732. N. B. On an appeal to the King and Council, the judgment of the supreme court was affirmed, See McCurdy v. Potts, 2 Dall. 98; Sims v. Irvine, 3 Id. 425; Bond v. Seabold, 6 S. & R. 137; Miller v. Carothers, Id. 221; Farley v. Lenox, 8 Id. 392.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Lessee of Fothergill v. Stover” in the last three months, from GDELT.