PUBLIC LANDS. Immediately upon the declaration of independence the State began to dispose of its immense tracts of vacant lands. It was granted at first in 640-acre tracts to each loyal citizen with one hundred additional acres to his wife and each child at five cents per acre; but for all in addition to that amount, ten cents per acre was charged, if the additional land was claimed within twelve months from the end of the session of the legislature of 1777.<a href="#1" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 1

Potter's Revisal, p. 275">[1] The price was expressed in pounds, two pounds and ten shillings standing for the tower and five pounds for the higher price. Ten cents was the charge for all lands in 1818. No person in Washington county, however, could take more than 640 acres and 100 additional for wife and each child,<a href="#2" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 2

Ibid. 1., p. 280">[2]
until the legislature should provide further; but the county was ceded as part of Tennessee before this restriction was removed. When the State acquired the Cherokee lands it reduced the price per acre in 1833 to five cents per acre again; but it was afterwards restored to ten cents, where it remained for a long time. There is also a curious proviso in the act of 1779 (ch. 140, s. 5) to the effect that no person shall be entitled "to claim any greater quantity of land than 640 acres where the survey shall be bounded in any part by vacant land, or more than 1,000 acres between the lines of lands already surveyed and laid out for any other person." Both the provision for the payment of five pounds for all in excess of 640 acres, etc., in any one year, and this last proviso, seem to have been disregarded from the first; for in 1796 the State granted to John Gray Blount over one million acres in Buncombe for fifty shillings a hundred acre. Under a statute allowing swamp lands to be granted in one body land speculators laid their entries adjoining each other in 640-acre tracts, and took out one grant for the entire boundary.<a href="#3" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 3

Melton v. Munday (64 N. C. Rep., p. 295); Waugh v. Richardson, 8 Ired. Law (30 N. C., p. 470).">[3]
These large tracts usually excepted a considerable acreage from the boundary granted, which acreage had been determined by the secretary of state from the surveys made upon the warrants; but unless the grants themselves showed upon their faces the number of acres of each tract and the names of the grantees to the excepted lands, the grantees could not show title by proving dehors that their land lay within the limits of the granted tract, as such excepted acreage merely leas held to be too vague to confer title; but the boundaries of these excepted tracts could be determined by the Secretary of State and shown by certified copies from his office.<a href="#4" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 4

Potter's Revisal, p. 463">[4]

CHEROKEE LANDS. Up to 1826 all lands had been ranked alike; but with the acquisition of the large Cherokee territory, with bottom, second bottom, hill, timber, mountain and cliff lands, a classification was imperative. So in that year commissioners were appointed to ascertain all the Cherokee lands that were worth more than fifty cents an acre, lay them off into sections containing from fifty to three hundred acres, and to note the quality of the land, stating whether it was first, second or third.<a href="#5" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 5

2 Vol. Rev. St. 1837, p. 201">[5] But this limited classification was soon found to be inadequate, and in 1836 commissioners were required to ascertain all unsold Cherokee lands as would sell for 20 cents per acre and over, and divide them into sections or districts and expose them for public sale; lands of the first quality to be sold for four dollars per acre; lands of the second quality for two dollars per acre; lands of the third quality for one dollar per acre; lands of the fourth quality for fifty cents per acre and lands of the fifth quality for not less than twenty cents per acre.<a href="#6" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 6

Ibid. pp. 210-11">[6]
The surveyor was also required to note in his field book the mines, mineral springs, mill seats, and principal water-courses; and to make three maps before November 1, 1837, one of which was to be deposited in the governor's office, the second in the office of the secretary of state, and the third in the office of the county clerk of the county of Macon. All the lands worth less than twenty cents per acre were denominated vacant and unsurveyed lands, but they could be entered while those classified could be bought only at auction.

HOW LANDS WERE TO BE SURVEYED. These surveyed and classified tracts were to be bounded by natural boundaries or right lines running east and west, north and south, and to be an exact square or oblong, the length not to exceed double the breadth, unless where such lines should interfere with lands already granted or surveyed, or should bound on navigable water, in which last case the water should form one side of the survey, etc.

PREFERENCES. Those who had made entries under the crown or Lord Granville, or, who, since his death had made improvements on the lands were to have preference in entering them.<a href="#7" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 7

Potter's Revisal, p. 280">[7]

INDIAN BOUNDS.<a href="#8" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 8

Ibid. p. 355">[8] In 1778 (ch. 132) it was provided that no lands within the Indian boundaries should be entered, surveyed or granted, and those boundaries were described as starting from a point on the dividing line agreed upon between the Cherokees and Virginia where the Virginia and North Carolina line shall cross the same when run; thence a right line to the north bank of the Holston river, at the mouth of Clouds creek, which was the second creek below the Warrior's ford at the mouth of Carter's valley; thence a right line to the highest point of High Rock or Chimney Top; thence a right line to the mouth of Camp or McNamee's creek on the south bank of Nollechucky river, about ten miles below the mouth of Great Limestone; and from the mouth of Camp creek a southeast course to the top of the Great Iron mountain; and thence a south course to the dividing ridge between the waters of French Broad and Nollechucky rivers; thence a southwestwardly course along said ridge to the Blue Ridge, and thence along the Blue Ridge to the South Carolina line. This excluded from entry and grant all of the mountain region west of the Blue Ridge that was south of the ridge between the French Broad and the Nollechucky rivers; but opened a territory now covered by the counties of Alleghany, Ashe, Watauga, Avery, Mitchell and a part of Yancey; and a good deal of the northeastern corner of what is now Tennessee.

HOUSES OF WORSHIP ON VACANT LANDS.<a href="#9" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 9

Potter's Revisal, p. 356">[9] All churches on vacant lands were given outright to the denominations which had built them, together with two acres adjoining.

OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE CONTINENTAL LIVE. In 1782 (ch. 173), each soldier and officer of the Continental line, then in service and who continued to the end of the war; or who had been disabled in the service and subsequently all who had served two years honorably and had not reenlisted or had been dropped on reducing the forces, were given lands as follows:

Privates 640 acres each; Non-commissioned officers 1000 acres each; Subalterns 2560 each; Captains 3840 each; Majors 4800 each; Lieut. Colonels 7200 each; Lieut.-Colonel Commanders 7200 each; Colonels 7200 each; Brigadiers 12000 each; Chaplains 7200 each; Surgeons 4800 each; and Surgeons Mates 2560 each. Three commissioners and a guard of 100 men were authorized to lay off these lands without expense to the soldiers.

LANDS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE CONTINENTAL LINE. In 1783 (ch. 186), the following land was reserved for tile soldiers and officers of the Continental line for three years : Beginning on the Virginia line where Cumberland river intersects the same; thence south fifty-five miles; thence west to the Tennessee river; thence down the Tennessee river to the Virginia line; thence with the Virginia line east to the beginning." This was a lordly domain, embracing Nashville and the Duck river country which was largely settled up by people from Buncombe county, including some of the Davidsons and General Thomas Love, who moved there about 1830. For it will be remembered that in the act of cession of the Tennessee territory it was expressly provided that in case the lands laid off for "the officers and soldiers of the Continental line" shall not "contain a sufficient quantity of lands for cultivation to make good the quota intended by law for each, such officer or soldier who shall fall short of his proportion shall make up the deficiency out of the lands of the ceded territory." But, while preference was given to the soldiers in these lands, they were not restricted to them, but could enter and get grants for any other land that was open for such purposes.

THE FOREHANDEDNESS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS. From Hart's "Formation of the Union," Sec. 51, we learn that although Congress had provided bounty lands for the soldiers of the Revolution, our officers demanded something better for themselves; and, to appease them, Congress, on the 26th of April, 1778, had voted them half pay for life, as an essential measure for keeping the army together. This caused great dissatisfaction; but on the 10th of March, 1783, the so-called "Newburgh Address" appeared. This anonymous document urged the officers of the army not to separate until Congress had done justice to them; and on the 22d of :March following, Washington used his influence to induce Congress to grant the officers full pay for the ensuing five years. This was done; but as the treasury was empty, certificates of indebtedness were issued in lieu of cash. These certificates bore interest. But in June, 1783, 300 mutineers surrounded the place of meeting of Congress, and demanded a settlement of the back pay; and the executive council of Pennsylvania declined to disperse them. This caused Congress to leave Philadelphia forever.

REVOLUTIONARY PENSIONS."<a href="#10" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 10

Potter's Revisal p. 442">[10] On August 26, 1776, Congress promised, by a resolution, to the officers and soldiers of the army and navy who might be disabled in the service, a pension, to continue during the continuance of their disabilities; and on June 7, 1785, recommended that the several States should make provision for the army, navy and militia pensioners resident within them, to be reimbursed by Congress. On September 29, an act was passed providing that the military pensions which had been granted and paid by the States, respectively, in pursuance of the foregoing acts, to invalids who were wounded and disabled during the late war, should be paid by the United States from the fourth day of March, 1789, for the space of one year; and the act of March 26, 1790, appropriated $96,000.72 for paying pensions which may become due to invalids. The act of April 30, 1790, provides for one-half pay pensions to soldiers of the regular army disabled while in line of duty; and the act of July 16, 1790, provides that the military pensions which have been granted and paid by the States respectively shall be continued and paid by the United States from the fourth of March, 1790, for the space of one year.

The first general act providing for the pensioning of all disabled in the actual service of the United States during the Revolutionary War was the act approved March 10, 1806, which was to remain in force but six years, but was subsequently extended and kept in force by acts of April 25, 1812, May 15, 1820, February 4, 1822, and May 24, 1828.<a href="#11" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 11

From "Dropped Stitches," pp. 71-72">[11]

LAND SPECULATION. Immediately after the formation of Buncombe the rush began, and large grants were issued to Stokely Donelson, Waightstill Avery, William Cathcart, David Allison and John Gray Blount, besides many others. The Flowery Garden tract on Pigeon was regarded as of the finest quality of land, and was granted to one of the McDowells. As the boundaries of the Cherokees were moved westward the same greed for land continued, and many large boundaries were entered, Robert and James R. Love of Waynesville having obtained tracts-those belonging to the Love speculation in 1865 containing in Haywood two hundred thousand, in Jackson fifty thousand, and one hundred and twenty-five thousand acres, in two tracts in Swain; a total of 375,000 acres in all.

ENLARGEMENT OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.<a href="#12" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 12

Potter's Revisal, p. 435">[12] In 1783 (ch. 185) the western boundary was enlarged so as to take in all lands south of the Virginia line and west of the Tennessee river to the Mississippi, then down that stream to the 35th parallel of north latitude; thence due east to the Appalachian mountains, and thence with them to the ridge between the French Broad and the Nollechucky [sic] river, and with that line till it strikes the line of the Indian Hunting grounds, set forth in chapter 132 of the laws of 1778. This, however, was superceded by the Act of Cession, 1789, ch. 299, accepted by Congress, April 2, 1790, Vol. II, p. 85, note on p. 455.

ENTRIES WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI VOID.<a href="#13" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 13

Ibid., p. 456">[13] It would seem that some of our enterprising citizens had been entering lands west of the Mississippi river at some time prior to 1783, for there is an act of that year (ch. 185) which declares that all entries of land heretofore made, or grants already obtained, or which may be hereafter obtained in consequence of the aforesaid entries of land, to the westward of the line last above described in this act …are hereby declared to be null and void…."

ENTRIES OF INDIAN LANDS VOID."<a href="#14" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 14

Ibid p. 436">[14] Section 5 of the act of 1783 (ch. 185) reserves certain of the lands to the Indians, which embrace part of the enlarged western boundary, with the Pigeon river as the eastern boundary, including the ridge between its waters and those of the Tuckaseegee river to the South Carolina line. All entries of such lands were void and all hunting and ranging of stock thereon were prohibited. But all other lands not reserved to the Indians were subject to entry; but at the price of five pounds per hundred acres.

ENTRY TAKER'S OFFICE CLOSED IN 1784.<a href="#15" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 15

Potter's Revisal, p. 457">[15] By chapter 196 of the laws of 1784 North Carolina passed an act to remove all doubts as to the ceded territory of Tennessee by expressly retaining jurisdiction over it till Congress should accept it; but until Congress did accept it it was considered "just and right that no further entries of lands within the territory aforesaid should be allowed until the Congress [should] refuse the cession." Therefore, it closed the entry taker's office and declared void all entries made subsequent to the 25th of May, 1784, John Armstrong having been the entry-taker; except "such entries of lands as shall be made by the commissioners, agents and surveyors who extended the lines allotted to the Continental officers and soldiers, and the guards and hunters, chain-carriers and markers" who had allotted the lands to the soldiers. This, however, applied only to the ceded territory of Tennessee.

GRANTS TO JOHN GRAY BLOUNT AND DAVID ALLISON. Two of the largest grants of land `Vest of the Blue Ridge were to John Gray Blount of Beaufort, North Carolina, and David Allison. The grant to Blount called for "320,640 acres and is dated November 29, 1796.<a href="#16" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 16

Book No. 4, P. 230">[16] It began in the Swannanoa gap and ran to Flat creek, and thence to Swannanoa river and to its mouth; thence down the French Broad to the Painted Rock; thence to the Bald mountain, thence to Nollechucky river, or Toe, thence to Crabtree creek, and thence to the beginning. The grant to David Allison is for 250,240 acres and is dated November 29, 1796.<a href="#17" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 17

Book 2, P. 458">[17]
<a href="#18" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 18

43,534 acres already granted are excepted from this boundary">[18]
This land lies on Hominy creek, Mill's and Davidson's rivers, Scott's creek, Big Pigeon and down it to Twelve-Mile creek to the French Broad and to the beginning. These lands were sold September 19, 1798, by James Hughey, Sheriff of Buncombe, for the taxes of 1796, and were purchased by John Strother of Beaufort for £115, 15 shillings, and the Sheriff gave him a deed dated September 29, 1798.<a href="#19" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 19

Book 4, p. 230">[19]
Strother sold some of these lands and made deeds to them, and in each deed he recited this Sheriff's deed as his source of title."<a href="#20" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 20

The lands embraced in this sale aggregated one million and seventy-four thousand acres. The tax title stood all tests. Love, v. Wilbourn, 5 Ired.. S. C. Rep., p. 344.">[20]
Strother was the friend and agent of John Gray Blount, and it is not clearly known why this large body of land was suffered to go on sale for the non-payment of taxes, only to be bought in by the man whose duty it had been, presumably, to see that the taxes were paid. But it is certain that, on the 22d of November, 1806, Strother made his last will (describing him self as of Buncombe county) and devised all of the lands he had received through Sheriff Hughey's deed as formerly be longing to John Gray Blount to that gentleman, describing him as his "beloved friend." This will was admitted to probate in Davidson County, Tennessee, March 1, 1816, and later on in Haywood and Madison counties, North Carolina. It was executed according to North Carolina laws of that date; but only one of the two subscribing witnesses to it was examined and he omitted to state that he had subscribed his name in the presence of the other subscribing witness. Chapter 52 of the Private Laws of 1885 validated this defective probate. The constitutionality of the act was questioned nevertheless, in Vanderbilt v. Johnston (141 N. C., p. 370) but upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that only- the heirs of Blount or Strother could object to the probate.

LOVE SPECULATION. After the death of Strother, Robert Love became the agent of the executors of J. G. Blount for the sale of these lands,<a href="#21" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 21

Will book F, p. 49">[21] but, on the 10th of December, 1834, these executors conveyed what was left of the Blount lands to Robert and James R. Love of Haywood county for $3,000. This deed, however, was not recorded till October 5, 1842, it having been probated by the late R. M. Henry, a subscribing witness, before Richmond -I. Pearson, October 2, 1839, who for years was the Chief Justice of this State.<a href="#22" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 22

Book 22, p. 71">[22]

THE CATHCART GRANTS. Other large tracts were granted to William Cathcart in July, 1796, 33,280 at the head of Jonathan's creek, and covering Oconalufty and Tuckaseegee river; 49,920, on Tuckaseegee river and Cane creek, "passing Wain's sugar house in a sugar tree cove,"<a href="#23" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 23

Book 22, p. 393">[23] and a like acreage on Scott's and Cane creeks. Much of this lay west of the divide between the headwaters of Pigeon river and those of Tuckaseegee river in what is now Jackson, and which was not subject to entry and grant in July, 1796, because it had been reserved to the Cherokee Indians by North Carolina by an act of 1783. (Sec. 2347, Code of N. C.) The State being the sovereign, the fee in such lands reverted to it whenever a new treaty with the Indians removed their boundary further west; which had happened by the treaty of Holston made in July, 1791, and that of Tellico, made afterwards. If Cathcart had taken out a new grant to this part of the land after that treaty his title thereto would have been good. But he did not.

LATIMER V. POTEET. The question as to the validity of the Cathcart grant to land west of that divide came up in Latimer v. Poteet (14 Peters U. S. Reports, p. 4), in which it was decided that while there may have been doubt as to the location of the eastern line of the Cherokees-subsequently known as the Meigs and Freeman line-the parties to that treaty had the right to determine disputes as to its location and remove uncertainties and defects, and that private rights could not be interposed to prevent the exercise of that power; which was tantamount to saying that Cathcart's title to that part of the land was null.

BROWN V. BROWN.<a href="#24" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 24

Daniel Webster represented the defendant in this case, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney filed a dissenting opinion.">[24] But, as land grew more valuable on account of the timber on it, the same question was brought up in the State court when a grant was taken to a part of the land which had been granted to David Allison in November, 1796, and lay west of the reservation divide between Pigeon and Tuckaseegee. This land had been sold by the heirs of Robert Love, who held under the deed from Sheriff Hughey of September 29, 1798. On the trial of the case in the Superior court, the judge held that the last grant was valid and that the original grant to Allison in 1796 was invalid. On appeal great consternation was caused in the fall of 1888 by the decision of the Supreme Court (in Brown v. Brown, 103 N. C., 213) to the effect that all grants of land extending west of the "dividing ridge between the waters of Pigeon river and Tuckaseegee river to the southern boundary of this State, were utterly void" (Code N. C., sections 2346-47) because when granted they were "within the boundary prescribed of the lands set apart to and for the Cherokee Indians." It was further held "that the treaty of Holston, concluded on the 2d day of July, 1791, between the United States and the Cherokee Indians, did not extinguish the title and right of those Indians to the territory embracing the lands embraced by the grant in question"-that to David Allison, of date 29th November, 1796. Immediately there was a rush to enter and secure grants to all lands to which grants had been issued west of the dividing ridge between the Pigeon and the Tuckaseegee. Where would the effect of that decision reach? No one knew. But, on a petition for a rehearing, Chief Justice Merrimon discovered "among a vast number of very old uncurrent statutes" one (Acts 1784, 1 Pot. Rev., ch. 202) that required surveyors in the "eastern part of the State" to survey lands that any person or persons "have entered or may hereafter enter"; which was afterwards extended (Acts 1794, 1 Pot. Rev., ch. 422; Haywood's Manual, p. 188) to apply to "all lands in this State lying to the eastward of the line of the ceded territory, " which was construed to mean "all the lands of this State not specially devoted to some particular purpose, and the implication intended was, that they should be subject to entry and survey just as were the lands mentioned in the statute, amended," it having been the purpose to embrace "the lands so acquired from the Cherokee Indians." Hence, the word., "lying to the eastward of the line of ceded territory"; this was the line separating this State from Tennessee which had been ceded to the United States in 1789; while the land acquired from the Indians by the treaty of Holston "lay immediately to the eastward of a part of that line." In the language of the chief justice, "it is fortunate that it has been discovered, as it rendered the land subject to entry and make, valid and sustains the grant in question, under which, no doubt, many excellent people derive title to their land." Upon the rehearing (106 N. C., 451) the Supreme Court held that by an act of 1777 it was made lawful for any citizen of the State "to enter any lands not granted before the fourth of July, 1776, which have accrued or shall accrue to this State by treaty or conquest"; and that the title of the Indian; to all lands east of the Holston treaty line were extinguished. This line had been fixed by the Meigs and Freeman survey, which location the State could not without breach of faith question; and the land in controversy, while lying west of the reservation of 1784, was east of the Meigs and Freeman survey. This settled the dispute.

WAIGHTSTILL AVERY GRANTS. About 1785 Hon. Waightstill Avery of Burke took out "hundreds of grants," generally for 640-acre tracts, covering almost the entire valley of North Toe river, from its source to somewhere below Toe-cane, there being, here and there, along the valley, some older grant wedged in between his tracts. He took out grants also for lands on most all of the tributaries of the North Toe, including the lower part of Squirrel creek, of Roaring creek, of Henson's creek and of Three-Mile creek"<a href="#25" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 25

So called because it is almost exactly three miles in length.">[25] and also along the lover valley of South Toe and of Linville river, down to the Falls, and the upper valley of Pigeon in Haywood county and of Mills river in Henderson and Transylvania. William Cathcart took out in 1795 two large grants, one known as the "99,000-Acre Tract," and the other as the "59,000-Acre Tract," which two large boundaries covered practically all of Mitchell county and of Avery county, except some tracts along the Blue Ridge…."<a href="#26" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 26

From letter of December 5, 1912, from Hon. A. C. Avery to J. P. A.">[26]
They also covered about all that had been previously granted to Waightstill Avery. For the litigation that subsequently ensued see "Cranberry Mine" under chapter on "Mines and Mining." Many grants were also made to William Lenoir and others.

CHEROKEE LANDS. By the act of 1819<a href="#27" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 27

Rev. St. 137, Vol. 11, p. 190">[27] no portion of the lands recently acquired from the Cherokees was required to be surveyed except such that, in the opinion of the commissioners appointed for that purpose, would sell for fifty cents per acre and over, while the rest was reserved for future disposition to be made by a subsequent legislature, and the act of 1826 required such lands to be classified into three tracts, as we have already seen. This was to be sold at auction, and in the meantime, no land not subject to survey-that is not worth fifty cents an acre or more-was subject to entry. But by the act of 1835<a href="#28" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 28

Ibid. l., p. 209">[28]
all such lands as were not worth fifty cents an acre were made subject to entry. Under the law of 1836<a href="#29" class="toolTip" title="Footnote: 29

Ibid. l., P 210">[29]
the Cherokee lands were required to be laid off into districts, which were to be numbered, and divided into tracts of from fifty to four hundred acres each, the first class of which was to be sold at auction for not less than 84 per acre, the second class for not less than $2, the third class for not less than $l, the fourth class for not less than fifty cents, and the fifth class for not less than 25 cents per acre. All the rest of the Cherokee lands which were not considered by the commissioners to be worth at auction more than 20 cents per acre were subject to entry. The surveyors were to note all the mines, mill sites, etc., on each tract, and three maps were to be made, showing the lands surveyed and the "vacant and unsurveyed lands," one of which was to be deposited in the office of the governor, another in the office of the secretary of state at Raleigh, and the third in the office of the register of deeds in Franklin, Macon county.

ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF PURCHASERS OF LANDS. Under this act of 1836 several purchasers found that they could not pay for the lands bid in by them at the auction sales, and in 1844-45 another act was passed providing that such persons might surrender such lands, after which the lands were to be reassessed by commissioners, when they could be repurchased by the former bidders at the new valuation by giving bonds with good security, if they so desired, and if not, then they could be sold at the new valuation to anyone. This law also provided for the sale of such lands as had not been sold at all under the first appraisment of their value, and for the relief of such poor and homeless people as had settled on the less valuable lands and had made improvements thereon in the hope of being able to pay for them at some future time and had been unable to do so, as well as for insolvent people who had been unable to pay for lands they had bought. New valuations were to be made and certificates given to such persons, -which certificates gave them preemption rights for the purchase of such lands upon giving good bonds for the payment of the purchase price. Much of the best lands were subsequently held under these "Occupation Tracts, " they having the refusal of the lands they had settled on and improved.

FLOATING ENTRIES. Such entries were those which stated in the entry that land beginning on a natural object in a certain district had been entered, but, without further description, they were void against enterers whose surveys covered it.


  1. Potter's Revisal, p. 275.
  2. Ibid., p. 280.
  3. Melton v. Munday (64 N. C. Rep., p. 295); Waugh v. Richardson, 8 Ired. Law (30 N. C., p. 470).
  4. Potter's Revisal, p. 463.
  5. 2 Vol. Rev. St. 1837, p. 201.
  6. Ibid., pp. 210-11.
  7. Potter's Revisal, p. 280.
  8. Ibid., p. 355.
  9. Potter's Revisal, p. 356.
  10. Potter's Revisal p. 442.
  11. From "Dropped Stitches," pp. 71-72.
  12. Potter's Revisal, p. 435.
  13. Ibid., p. 456.
  14. Ibid., p. 436.
  15. Potter's Revisal, p. 457.
  16. Book No. 4, P. 230.
  17. Book 2, P. 458.
  18. 43,534 acres already granted are excepted from this boundary.
  19. Book 4, p. 230.
  20. The lands embraced in this sale aggregated one million and seventy-four thousand acres. The tax title stood all tests. Love, v. Wilbourn, 5 Ired.. S. C. Rep., p. 344.
  21. Will book F, p. 49.
  22. Book 22, p. 71.
  23. Book 22, p. 393.
  24. Daniel Webster represented the defendant in this case, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney filed a dissenting opinion.
  25. So called because it is almost exactly three miles in length.
  26. From letter of December 5, 1912, from Hon. A. C. Avery to J. P. A.
  27. Rev. St. 137, Vol. 11, p. 190.
  28. Ibid., p. 209.
  29. Ibid., P 210.

NOTE: For Forge Bounty grants see ch. 293, laws 1533, Potter's Revisal, p. 593.