A Bratton Land Dispute

Harrisburg, May term, 1846

Bratton et. al. vs. Mitchell

ERROR to the court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County.

May 22. This was an action of ejectment brought by George Mitchell against C. Landis, J. Bratton, and C. Bratton, for a tract of land, in Oliver township, Mifflin county. The facts of the case are presented in the charge of the court below, and in the opinion of this court. In the court below, Wilson, President, charged the jury as follows:--

"George Mitchell, the plaintiff, claims title to the land is dispute under Frederick Lazarus, to whom a warranr issued on the 26th of November, 1793, and on which a survey was made on the 15th of May, 1794, and returned to the land-office, 19th November, 1795. The death of Frederick Lazarus is proven, and his heirs by their deed, dated the 2d of November, 1837, convey to George Mitchell, the plaintiff, by which, George Mitchll became the owner of whatever title Frederick Lazarus or his heirs had to the lands, within the survey of that warrant. The defendand has shown that the tract surveyed on this warrant, in the name of Frederick Lazarus, was presented to John Freed, on the 1st of December, 1795. The patent recites a deed-poll from F. Lazarus to William Bratton; a deed from Bratton to John Freed, the patentee. This is all that is shown by either party of the legal title, and the defendants do not pretend to show any title in them, derived from the patentee; and their evidence shows that they are holding adverse to the legal title granted by the Commonwealth, to either F. Lazarus or John Frees. The intermediate conveyances recited in the patent, as conveying the title of Lazarus to John Frees,, are not shown. Had they been shown, the plaintiff, who, in ejectment, must recover on the strength of his own title, could not have recovered; for, in that case, the heirs of Frederick Lazaras would not have any estate or interest in the land to convey, and their deed to Mitchell would be no better to him than so much blank paper. But the bare recital of these conveyances in the patent are not evidence of those conveyances against the warrantee, when the defendant does not shown his possession under, but adverse to the title granted by the Commonwealth to Frees, the patentee. This patent then cannot  in this case, as it stands before us, against the title claimed by the plaintiff through the warrantee. The defendant alleges an improvement made by Robert Elliott, previous to the location of the warrant, which included a part, and the part in dispute of the Lazarus survey. You will observe from the evidence, that the house of Eliott is not on the Lazarus tract, but some considerable distance from it. The land, cleared about the house or cabin, called Elliott's, does not extend to the Lazarus tract. A smalll field was also cleared up towards to mountain, not on the Lazarus tract; but a small field on the line of the Lazarus survey, some of the witnesses say, was cleared over on to Lazarus's. they do not say when it was cleared, or by whom. Montgomery says there was none cleared over; Andrew Bratton does not recollect to ahve seen any cleared over. That the Brattons claimed land there, under the Elliott improvement, is not disputed. But did their claim under that improvement extend to the Lazarus survey. Under the improvement thay have not taken up; ot, at least, not shown us, that they have taken up any land by warrant from the Commonewealth. Mr. Bratton speaksof vacant land there, but not sufficient to fill a warrant of four hundred acres. It is not shown to us,when the vacant part was confined to the quantity now vacant by the location of their warrant on the adjoining land, except the warrant of Frederick Lazarus. There may, for any thing that appears in evidence, have been at the time the Lazarus survey was located, more than four hundred acres vacant. That the adjoining surveys were made previous to Lazarus's survey, so as to leave the quantity that could have been taken up on the Elliott improvement, has not been shown. Then, if the other surveys now located - if there are any -- were not located, until since Elliott made his improvement, how is it to be known, without the settler designates his boundaries, in what direction from his house he is going to taker up his three hundred acres for improvement. Men, who go to the land-office, and take out thier warrants for land in the neighborhood, are not all bound to keep at such distance from the improvement. so as that the improver can by his three hundred acres, in what direction he pleases from this improvement, include it. If the defendant had shown, that warrants and surveys encroached on his improvement, so as not to leave sufficient open land to fill up a warrant of the three hundred acres, or leaving that much for the Elliott improvement, without taking a part of what is now surrveyed on the Lazarus warrant, therewould be some reason for the argument of the defense's counsel, that it all should be taken from Frederick Lazarus, or the land on which Frederick Lazarus is located.

"The question for you, in the first place, under the evidence, is to say, whether Robert Elliott, ot the Brattons, whose claim is the same, claimed by the virtue of their improvement, any part, or the part of the Lazarus survey included in the lines run on the McDonald warrant, and have kept up their improvement without abandoningthat claim. It f they have, it will prevail against the title ofthe plaintiff, as further evidence to show that they claimed, and are entitled, by their improvement, to the land in dispute. They show that the last person in possession of the Elliott house was sailor Billy Bratton, jun., who about 1819 or 20, moved from the old building, to a new house put up within the lines run for McDonald on the Lazarus survey. If the Brattons abandoned this old improvement, or, by it, did not include in their claim, the part now in dispute, which is the part included within the lines run on the McDonald warrant, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. If you find that they did not abandon their claim, and in their claim you are satisfied they included the part in dispute, the defendant would be entitle to a verdict. Shoud you find for the Plaintiff, your verdict will be for the part only in the defendant's possession, which is included in the lines of the Lazarus aurvey."

The jury found for the plaintiff.

The errors assigned, which are considered here, are clearly and specifically stated in the opinion of the court.{fn]Pennsylvania State Reports, Vol 3, by Pennnsylvania Supreme Court

NOTES: An explanation of the various errors of this case followed the exposition above, but there are a few points which I found of interest, without needing to copy the entire piece.

1. There is mention of  an earlier case related to this one, specifying that Mitchell had recovered title to some of the land, excluding the section in dispute, on a tax title against Bratton in 1823. An earlier deed showed some of the land being endorsed to Anthony Elton, by Dorcas Stackpole, to George Mitchell. Elton was an agent of Dorcas Stackpole and he bought the tract for her with her money, but died before she conveyed.

2. There was an assignment made on December 30th, 1819 between James McDonald and sailor Billy Bratton, showing a sale of the McDonald claim, to William Bratton, jun. Further evidence was given that sailor Billy Bratton was at one time within the McDonald land surveyed, as his tenant.

3. There was a record, recorded in November Term, 1828. of an ejectment made between Charles Bratton v. Charles Landis.

4. A warrant and survey were made in the name of Thomas Holt, dated in  1816. It was for fifty acres, adjoining the heirs of Samuel Bratton, Dorcas Stackpole and others, with proof of where it lies.

So, there is apparently a potential connection between Samuel Bratton and Billy Bratton, and a known connection between Samuel and Charles.

Here's a bit more to this case from an earlier volume:

Mitchell Against Bratton

This was an action of ejectment by George Mitchell against Charles Bratton and James Bratton, for a trct of land in which the plaintiff's title was founded upon as assesment and sale of the land as unseated, by the treasurer of Mifflin County, as the property of Frederick Lazarus. The only point in the cause of any consequence arose out of the following instruction of the court below to the jury

Woodward (President): the residue of this cases relates to the settlement made within the lines of Frederick Lazarus by "young Sailor Billy Bratton.: The evidence is that he went on the land in the year 1819, built a house and lived there two, three or four years, when he left, and Christopher Landis came in, who has lived there ever since. James M'Kinstry said, on cross-examination, that Bratton built under M'Donald and Bair; and after the defendants had shown this settlement and residence by Bratton, the plaintiff showed a warrant to James M'Donald for 30 acres, dated the 28th May 1817. It woudl seem from a draft of Michael M. MNonahan, and the testimony of Andrew Bratton, that a survey of 30 acres was made in pursuance of this warrant wholly within the lines of Frederick Lazarus...