326:
402:, did not wish to be bound by any agreements his father had made. This froze the resolution of the boundary dispute again, and surveying efforts came to a halt. But by 1760, Calvert relented, and he entered into an agreement on 4 July which matched the 1732 agreement and the Lord Chancellor's Decree of 1750. In November of that year, the Commissioners met in New Castle, agreed to the Transpeninsular Survey results, and placed the Middle Point marker. The southernmost boundary was finally completed.
228:, Pennsylvania's major city, exacerbated existing disputes over the border. Each side attempted to surreptitiously conduct one-sided surveys of the borders. In 1722, Calvert complained to the Maryland Council that the Chief Justice of Cecil County had been arrested by Pennsylvania for "running out some lines" in the forest; Maryland, in turn, arrested Isaac Taylor, the surveyor who had earlier worked on the circle, for an incursion into Maryland territory.
249:
would be divided by a line running west from Cape
Henlopen to the middle of the peninsula, and from that middle point a line would be drawn north to a point tangent to the Twelve Mile Circle. From the tangent point, a line would be drawn along the circle until it was due north of the tangent point, at which point it would go due north again until it was intersected by an east-west line which would be placed 15 miles (24 km) south of Philadelphia.
571:, however, is subject to two limitations. First, it must be possible for the decree issued by the English court to be carried into effect in the country where the land is situated ... Secondly, the personal obligation which is the basis of the English court’s jurisdiction must, ... 'have run from the defendant to the plaintiff', ie there must be privity of obligation between the parties to the action."
475:
262:
31:
406:
287:; and once in Philadelphia. The Commission could not agree, however, on several points of contention related to the Twelve Mile Circle. First, the Maryland Commissioners insisted that a circle must have a center point and they were not empowered to determine what the center point was. Second, the Maryland Commissioners insisted the circle should have a
217:
437:. After doing additional observation and surveying work, they established the east-west boundary line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. In August 1764, they ran a line from the New Castle Court House to determine the correct tangent point. From 4–25 September, they surveyed the north-south line down to the Middle Point Marker.
558:
accepts the decision and cites it as the primary authority for the proposition that "though the court has no jurisdiction to determine rights over foreign land, yet where the court has jurisdiction over a person ... the court has jurisdiction to compel him to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, his
531:
is also noteworthy in that it is doesn't specifically state what it is normally cited as authority for: namely that the
English courts may rule on matters relating to title to foreign law where their rulings only operate in equity with respect to the parties. Although the Lord Chancellor held that
413:
In 1761, the colonial surveyors made an attempt at surveying the Twelve mile circle by laying a chain in a line from the Court House's cupola, but they were unsuccessful due their tools and bad calculations. They tried again in 1763, but the line was still off. The two parties agreed to replace the
340:
He commenced his judgment by noting the importance of the matter, calling as it did for "the determination of the right and boundaries of two great provincial governments and three counties; of a nature worthy the judicature of a Roman senate rather than of a single judge". He also added that this
248:
The King and
Committee convinced the two sides to come to another compromise. On 10 May 1732, Calvert and the Penns signed an Article of Agreement which reaffirmed much of the 1685 ruling, but adjusted Pennsylvania's southern boundary below the 40th parallel. The agreement stated that the peninsula
574:
Clarkson & Hill refers to the case as authority for the statement: "the court will enforce an obligation arising from such a contract, or from a trust or some other source, not merely by an award of damages or other monetary relief, but even by ordering a party to transfer or create a right in
383:
In relation to the suggestion of fraud, he found that the agreement had been proposed by Penn himself, and so dismissed that assertion. As to the claim that the agreement was too uncertain (because of the vagaries of the circle's dimensions), he ruled that it was sufficiently certain, and broadly
356:
He then addressed several pleaded claims against the enforceability of the agreement (that it lacked consideration, that it was fraudulent, that Penn was unaware of his rights when making it, that too much time had elapsed since the agreement to enforce it, etc.). He summarily dismissed those. In
352:
on the litigants rather than binding or adjudicating upon the King. He similarly dismissed objections that such claims are non-justiciable (noting that the claims had dragged on for 70 years and would presumably continue to drag on if not resolved), and dismissed objections that the title of land
299:
Ultimately the
Commissioners signed a statement saying they could not come to an accord. Following this failure, Lord Baltimore filed a new petition in the English Court of Chancery, and the Penns filed a counter-petition. King George II issued a decree on 4 May 1738 barring either proprietor from
444:
and the
Commissioners approved their results. From 17 December 1765 through 1 January 1766, they placed monument stones under the supervision of one commissioner from each colony. In 1767, they mapped the western line as far as possible before turning back. The surveyors presented their finalised
196:
The background to the dispute is slightly complicated, and it relates to a number of different charters given to the Penn family and the
Calvert family over the years, the parameters and boundaries of which shifted. But in its essence the primary difficulty was that the boundary between the land
316:
was decided in 1745, and covered much of the same ground. But for whatever reason, the first decision has been largely ignored by both lawyers and historians. In it the court declined to make any final order until the
Attorney General was joined as a party, but noted the same concerns as the
166:
The case is important both as a legal precedent under
English law (in relation to the extent to which the English courts may act in relation to matters involving title to foreign land), but also as an event in its own right during a formative period of the pre-history of the United States.
575:
foreign land. In such a case, the court is not adjudicating on the present title to the land, on which its decision may be ineffective; its order to transfer or create a title can be enforced in personam — by committing the defendant for contempt if he does not comply with the order."
271:
The
Articles of Agreement also created a new Commission to oversee the implementation of the boundary agreement and the placing of monuments to formally mark the borders. Each party appointed seven members to the Commission, which was to be led by the governors of the two colonies.
239:
to force the Penns to agree to a formal demarcation of the boundaries. The matter was referred to the
Committee for Trade and Plantations. Calvert insisted the boundary should remain the 40th parallel, while the Penns argued it should be placed 20 miles south of Philadelphia.
456:
on 20 August 1768. King George approved the boundaries on 11 January 1769 — over eighty-five years after the beginning of the dispute, and 136 years after the first grant was made to the first Lord Baltimore. Both proprietary families subsequently lost their colonies in the
614:
has been relied upon as precedent for numerous other cases involving American boundary disputes, particularly Lord Hardwicke's assertion that "long possession and enjoyment... is one of the best evidence of title to lands or districts of lands in America."
295:
of 12 miles (19 km). Lord Baltimore had also discovered the mapping error that resulted in Fenwick Island being used as the southernmost boundary point in the Articles of Agreement, rather than Cape Henlopen, and he protested this.
341:
was why the case had been stood over for decision, and not because of "any doubt of what was the justice of the case". He noted that despite the weighty subject matter, the only relief sought was the common chancery remedy of
562:
Cheshire, North & Fawcett cites the decision for the proposition "a contract concerning foreign land is subject to a personal obligation which affects his conscience and which can be enforced by the personal process of a
538:
is actually not the earliest case in which that general principle of law is cited. Cheshire & North refers to an even earlier case where broadly the same principle was applied in relation to land in Ireland:
550:
Be that as it may, the case is now universally cited and relied upon for the board proposition that the court can enforce personal rights relating to land abroad by exercising jurisdiction over the parties.
609:
In the United States the decision is cited for a somewhat different legal proposition. As one of the earliest attempts by the courts to adjudicate boundary disputes between colonies or states in America,
532:
he did have jurisdiction to hear the case, the objection to jurisdiction was stated on the basis that the issue had been determined by the King, not that the land itself was located overseas.
586:
Professor Adrian Briggs of Oxford University has asserted that the judicial precedent is sufficiently important that there should be a similar eponymous rule referring to the case itself.
671:
380:). He held that "these articles are not like a submission to arbitration", and "nothing is left to the judgment of commissioners, who are merely ministerial to run the line".
523:
exercised jurisdiction in personam in relation to foreign land against persons locally within the jurisdiction of the English court in cases of contract, fraud and trust.
345:
of the 1732 agreement. He added that it was a requirement of such an order that damages were an insufficient remedy, and he pointed out that was clearly the case here.
384:
found in favour of Penn that it was to be 12 miles in radius, but he held that should be measured from the centre of the town, not the outer edges as Penn had argued.
387:
Finally he concluded: "I am of opinion therefore to decree a specific performance of this agreement without prejudice to any right, &c., of the crown."
325:
1797:
1063:
See section "History of the Boundary Dispute Between the Baltimores and Penns Resulting in the Original Mason and Dixon Line" by Edward Bennett Matthews
357:
relation to the delay point, he noted that time only ran from the default not the agreement, and in any event equity could grant relief in such cases.
348:
He addressed first the pleading that the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of Royal grant and dismissed that, noting that equity acts
205:
around New Castle, and from there to run south to the land between the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. However, there were a number of key problems:
1047:
429:, where they built an observatory. They then proceeded 31 miles west where they set up their headquarters for the project on the Harlan Farm in
1189:
399:
170:
The decision helped end the 85-year dispute over the Pennsylvania–Maryland border, although the issue was not definitively resolved until King
936:
1775:
1752:
1729:
1284:
1107:
1414:
478:
235:
and questions surrounding to which proprietor they owed taxes prompted both sides to desire a settlement. In 1731, Calvert petitioned King
422:
was signed on 20 July 1763. Mason and Dixon arrived in Philadelphia on 15 November 1763, where they met with the boundary Commissioners.
224:
The discovery that the Twelve Mile Circle did not actually intersect with the 40th parallel, and that the parallel was actually north of
334:
156:
118:
390:
He then awarded costs of the action to Lord Baltimore, as he had essentially won the action. There was no appeal against the decision.
191:
160:
1663:
1499:
1367:
861:
590:
492:, that the ability of the court to make rulings on individuals in relation to land overseas operates as an equitable exception the
449:
171:
790:, 134 US 1 (1890), the Court noted that while some types of lawsuits were not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution,
1428:
1574:
731:
280:
1807:
1626:
364:
The conscience of the party was bound by this agreement and being within the jurisdiction of the court ... which acts
1548:
601:, "seems to me to be open to the strong objection, that the Court is doing indirectly what it dare not do directly".
1686:
1600:
1522:
1420:
1233:
236:
1802:
794:"shows that some of these unusual subjects of litigation were not unknown to the courts even in colonial times."
761:
747:
723:
643:
589:
However the decision has also been subject to criticism. Cheshire North & Fawcett refers to the comments of
555:
430:
426:
253:
376:(at this time arbitration was a relatively new concept in English law, having been formally recognised in the
1767:
1744:
853:
773:
627:
559:
interest in foreign land so as to give effect to obligations which he has incurred with regard to the land."
445:
boundaries to the Commissioners at Christiana in November 1767. They departed America on 11 September 1768.
337:, on 15 May 1750. Unusually for cases of the time, report of the decision is relatively long and complete.
353:
grants in the disputed areas would be affected and the settlers in those lands were not party to the suit.
638:
The case has been cited numerous times with approval in the English courts. Reported decisions include:
778:
739:
373:
276:
663:
453:
434:
175:
803:
764:
441:
377:
342:
182:
occurred, and both parties essentially lost all of the lands they had been arguing over for so long.
1196:
1076:
942:
458:
198:
179:
1326:
990:
202:
1721:
414:
colonial surveyors with a team from England. A contract between the Penns, Lord Baltimore, and
1771:
1748:
1725:
1659:
1495:
1424:
1363:
1280:
1103:
857:
786:
1653:
1489:
1357:
1318:
1016:
1001:
133:
1309:
Wass, Jack (2014). "The Court's in Personam Jurisdiction in Cases Involving Foreign Land".
312:, as it was actually the second case to be adjudicated between the parties on this issue.
209:
The biggest issue was that the 40th parallel did not intersect with the Twelve-Mile Circle.
1475:
564:
493:
284:
256:
as Cape Henlopen. That point was 19 miles (31 km) south of the actual Cape Henlopen.
712:
300:
making any land grants in the disputed territory, and creating temporary boundary lines.
291:
of 12 miles (19 km), while the Pennsylvania Commissioners insisted it should have a
232:
984:
360:
In the seminal statement of law for which the case is most famous, Lord Hardwicke held:
419:
1791:
1330:
415:
288:
87:
212:
A key subsidiary issue was that Philadelphia was located south of the 40th parallel.
197:
granted to Penn and the land granted to the Calverts was intended to run across the
225:
35:
1447:
823:
474:
261:
777:, 4 U.S. 1 (1799), which was the first case heard by the Supreme Court under its
718:
In the United States it was cited by the US Supreme Court on several occasions:
405:
1322:
372:
Then he addressed the objection that the 1732 agreement was essentially an
216:
1655:
Judicial Settlement of Controversies Between States of the American Union
308:
It has been sensibly suggested that the case should properly be known as
872:, a decision also so important that it deserves to be known by its name.
433:
and erected a stone as a reference point. The stone is known now as the
425:
Mason and Dixon's first task was to determine the southernmost point of
30:
986:
The Breviate in the Boundary Dispute Between Pennsylvania and Maryland
292:
519:
Courts of Equity have from the time of Lord Hardwicke’s decision in
279:. They subsequently met six more times: four times at New Castle's
938:
East of the Mason-Dixon Line: A History of the Delaware Boundaries
473:
404:
324:
215:
252:
The map included in the agreement, however, incorrectly labeled
488:
is taken as the earliest authority that because equity acts
440:
In November, Mason and Dixon met with the Commissioners in
1077:"Lord Baltimore's Own Plan - Huntingfield Map Collection"
499:. Ironically the decision giving rise to the exception (
1764:
Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law
1021:
Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies
220:
Disputed territories during the period of Cresap's war.
1551:
State of Rhode Island v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
941:. Delaware Public Archives. p. 68. Archived from
732:
State of Rhode Island v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
672:
British South Africa Company v Companhia de Moçambique
899:
897:
895:
882:
880:
626:
has also been cited with approval and applied by the
503:) precedes the case establishing the general rule (
124:
114:
109:
99:
94:
82:
68:
60:
50:
42:
23:
691:Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd v Dick
1718:Dicey, Morris & Collins: The Conflict of Laws
1221:Companhia de Moçambique v British South Africa Co
582:, the case has an entire chapter dedicated to it.
505:British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique
178:in 1768. Ironically, just seven years later the
155:(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 was a judicial decision of
781:authority to resolve disputes between states.
567:". Cheshire also notes that: "The doctrine of
362:
317:subsequent decision relating to land overseas.
1577:Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of Tennessee
740:Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of Tennessee
507:AC 602) by nearly 150 years. Indeed, in the
8:
1603:State of Virginia v. State of West Virginia
1525:State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia
1311:International and Comparative Law Quarterly
1184:
1182:
1122:Reported at (1745) Ridg t H 332, 27 ER 847.
1017:"Penn vs. Baltimore: A Brief For The Penns"
850:Private International Law in English Courts
748:State of Virginia v. State of West Virginia
1408:
1406:
1404:
1402:
1164:Although he used the term "semi-diameter".
989:. Edwin K. Meyers, state printer. p.
868:The source of the rule is the decision in
333:The case came before the Lord Chancellor,
29:
20:
275:The Commission held its first meeting in
1467:
1465:
1442:
1440:
1275:Charles Mitchell; Paul Mitchell (2012).
1098:Charles Mitchell; Paul Mitchell (2012).
930:
928:
926:
924:
922:
920:
918:
916:
914:
912:
843:
841:
448:Baltimore and the Penns petitioned King
398:In 1751, Charles Calvert died. His son,
260:
1687:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
1627:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
1601:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
1575:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
1549:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
1523:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes |
815:
1741:Clarkson & Hill's Conflict of Laws
1629:State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
1071:
1069:
1048:"Maryland Geological Survey, Volume 7"
978:
976:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
755:State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
400:Frederick Calvert, 6th Baron Baltimore
368:, the court may properly decree it ...
16:Judicial decision of Lord Hardwicke LC
1042:
1040:
1038:
174:formally approved the newly surveyed
7:
1343:
1250:
903:
479:Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore
201:, and then where it intersected the
685:Re Anchor Line (Henderson Bros) Ltd
547:(1682) 1 Vern 75 at 77, 23 ER 322.
231:Conflicts between settlers such as
1476:[2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)
14:
1798:English conflict of laws case law
1488:Mitchell, Charles (6 July 2012).
1356:Mitchell, Charles (6 July 2012).
886:
713:[2004] EWHC 1088 (Ch)
709:R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans (No 2)
1262:
1240:. All Answers Ltd. 27 July 2019.
159:in relation to the long-running
1195:. Cliveden.org. Archived from
824:"Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750)"
1:
1448:"Penn v Lord Baltimore: 1750"
511:case, it expressly refers to
192:Penn–Calvert boundary dispute
161:Penn–Calvert boundary dispute
1394:Henderson v Bank of Hamilton
1176:(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 at 455.
1155:(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 at 450.
1134:(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 at 446.
314:Penn v Lord Baltimore (No 1)
310:Penn v Lord Baltimore (No 2)
1652:Scott, James Brown (2002).
647:(1796) 3 Ves 170, 30 ER 952
1824:
1716:Collins, Lawrence (2012).
1421:Cambridge University Press
983:Court of Chancery (1891).
597:case that the decision in
556:Dicey Morris & Collins
461:, just seven years later.
189:
1323:10.1017/S0020589313000468
1079:. Maryland State Archives
1053:. Maryland State Archives
762:New York Attorney General
724:Maryland v. West Virginia
644:Lord Cranstown v Johnston
129:
78:11 Digest (Repl) 377, 407
28:
1762:Torremans, Paul (2017).
1658:. The Lawbook Exchange.
1491:Landmark Cases in Equity
1359:Landmark Cases in Equity
1277:Landmark Cases in Equity
1190:"Chew Family Chronology"
1100:Landmark Cases in Equity
697:Razelos v Razelos (No 2)
659:(1862) 3 De GF and J 583
653:(1840) Mont & Ch 239
630:on different occasions.
580:Landmark Cases in Equity
543:, undated, but cited in
254:Fenwick Island, Delaware
1739:Hill, Jonathan (2016).
774:New York v. Connecticut
628:Supreme Court of Canada
265:The Twelve-Mile Circle.
848:Adrian Briggs (2014).
525:
481:
454:Mason-Dixon boundaries
410:
370:
330:
266:
221:
176:Mason–Dixon boundaries
55:Penn v Lord Baltimore
1174:Penn v Lord Baltimore
1153:Penn v Lord Baltimore
1143:1 Ves Sen 444 at 447.
1132:Penn v Lord Baltimore
779:original jurisdiction
757:, 180 U.S. 208 (1900)
743:, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)
517:
486:Penn v Lord Baltimore
477:
408:
374:arbitration agreement
328:
277:Chestertown, Maryland
264:
219:
152:Penn v Lord Baltimore
138:title to foreign land
24:Penn v Lord Baltimore
804:Province of Maryland
765:Josiah Ogden Hoffman
735:, 37 U.S. 657 (1838)
667:(1883) 9 App Cas 34.
634:Subsequent decisions
452:for approval of the
442:Christiana, Delaware
409:The Mason–Dixon line
378:Arbitration Act 1697
343:specific performance
72:(1750) 1 Ves Sen 444
1808:1750 in British law
1722:Sweet & Maxwell
1413:JG Collier (2001).
1279:. Hart Publishing.
1234:"The Law of Equity"
1102:. Hart Publishing.
751:, 78 U.S. 39 (1870)
727:, 217 U.S. 1 (1910)
545:Arglasse v Muschamp
470:England & Wales
459:American Revolution
180:American Revolution
103:(1745) Ridg t H 332
1693:. laws.findlaw.com
1633:. laws.findlaw.com
1607:. laws.findlaw.com
1581:. laws.findlaw.com
1555:. laws.findlaw.com
1529:. laws.findlaw.com
1396:(1893) 23 SCR 716.
1392:4 DLR 529 at 535;
1265:, p. 142-143.
1253:, p. 489-490.
482:
435:Star Gazers' Stone
411:
331:
267:
222:
203:Twelve-Mile Circle
1777:978-0-19-967899-0
1766:(15th ed.).
1754:978-0-19-873229-7
1731:978-0-414-02453-3
1720:(15th ed.).
1689:Hans v. Louisiana
1478:, at paras 49-50.
1286:978-1-84946-154-2
1109:978-1-84946-154-2
935:Nathan, Roger E.
889:, p. 23-042.
787:Hans v. Louisiana
664:Ewing v Orr Ewing
657:Norris v Chambres
394:Subsequent events
329:Lord Hardwicke LC
157:Lord Hardwicke LC
148:
147:
119:Lord Hardwicke LC
1815:
1803:1750 in case law
1781:
1758:
1743:(5th ed.).
1735:
1703:
1702:
1700:
1698:
1683:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1672:
1649:
1643:
1642:
1640:
1638:
1623:
1617:
1616:
1614:
1612:
1597:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1586:
1571:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1560:
1545:
1539:
1538:
1536:
1534:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1508:
1485:
1479:
1469:
1460:
1459:
1457:
1455:
1444:
1435:
1434:
1419:(3rd ed.).
1416:Conflict of Laws
1410:
1397:
1387:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1353:
1347:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1306:
1300:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1272:
1266:
1260:
1254:
1248:
1242:
1241:
1230:
1224:
1223:2 QB 358 at 364.
1218:
1212:
1211:
1209:
1207:
1201:
1194:
1186:
1177:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1114:
1113:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1084:
1073:
1064:
1062:
1060:
1058:
1052:
1044:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1028:
1015:Hayes, Carroll.
1012:
1006:
1005:
1002:Internet Archive
999:
997:
980:
955:
954:
952:
950:
932:
907:
901:
890:
884:
875:
874:
870:Penn v Baltimore
845:
836:
835:
833:
831:
820:
792:Penn v Baltimore
769:Penn v Baltimore
624:Penn v Baltimore
612:Penn v Baltimore
599:Penn v Baltimore
569:Penn v Baltimore
541:Archer v Preston
536:Penn v Baltimore
529:Penn v Baltimore
521:Penn v Baltimore
513:Penn v Baltimore
501:Penn v Baltimore
134:conflict of laws
110:Court membership
90:
33:
21:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1788:
1787:
1785:
1778:
1761:
1755:
1738:
1732:
1715:
1712:
1707:
1706:
1696:
1694:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1670:
1668:
1666:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1636:
1634:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1610:
1608:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1584:
1582:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1558:
1556:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1532:
1530:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1506:
1504:
1502:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1470:
1463:
1453:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1438:
1431:
1423:. p. 263.
1412:
1411:
1400:
1388:
1384:
1374:
1372:
1370:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1342:
1338:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1287:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1261:
1257:
1249:
1245:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1219:
1215:
1205:
1203:
1202:on 2 April 2015
1199:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1180:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1159:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1110:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1082:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1067:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1036:
1026:
1024:
1014:
1013:
1009:
995:
993:
982:
981:
958:
948:
946:
945:on 2 April 2017
934:
933:
910:
902:
893:
885:
878:
864:
847:
846:
839:
829:
827:
822:
821:
817:
812:
800:
771:in the case of
703:Hamlin v Hamlin
636:
621:
607:
565:court of equity
527:As a precedent
472:
467:
465:Legal precedent
396:
323:
306:
285:Joppa, Maryland
269:
268:
246:
194:
188:
144:
104:
86:
77:
75:
73:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1821:
1819:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1800:
1790:
1789:
1783:
1782:
1776:
1759:
1753:
1736:
1730:
1711:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1678:
1664:
1644:
1618:
1592:
1566:
1553:, 37 U.S. 657"
1540:
1514:
1500:
1494:. Bloomsbury.
1480:
1472:Re J (A Child)
1461:
1436:
1429:
1398:
1382:
1368:
1362:. Bloomsbury.
1348:
1346:, p. 490.
1336:
1301:
1292:
1285:
1267:
1255:
1243:
1225:
1213:
1178:
1166:
1157:
1145:
1136:
1124:
1115:
1108:
1090:
1065:
1034:
1007:
956:
908:
906:, p. 487.
891:
876:
862:
837:
814:
813:
811:
808:
807:
806:
799:
796:
759:
758:
752:
744:
736:
728:
716:
715:
706:
700:
694:
688:
682:
676:
668:
660:
654:
648:
635:
632:
620:
617:
606:
603:
584:
583:
576:
572:
560:
471:
468:
466:
463:
420:Jeremiah Dixon
395:
392:
335:Lord Hardwicke
322:
319:
305:
302:
259:
258:
245:
244:1732 Agreement
242:
214:
213:
210:
190:Main article:
187:
184:
146:
145:
143:
142:
139:
136:
130:
127:
126:
122:
121:
116:
112:
111:
107:
106:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
84:
80:
79:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
52:
51:Full case name
48:
47:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1820:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1801:
1799:
1796:
1795:
1793:
1786:
1779:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1733:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1692:
1691:, 134 U.S. 1"
1690:
1682:
1679:
1667:
1665:9781584771722
1661:
1657:
1656:
1648:
1645:
1632:
1631:, 180 US 208"
1630:
1622:
1619:
1606:
1604:
1596:
1593:
1580:
1579:, 148 US 503"
1578:
1570:
1567:
1554:
1552:
1544:
1541:
1528:
1526:
1518:
1515:
1503:
1501:9781847319753
1497:
1493:
1492:
1484:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1450:. Swarb.co.uk
1449:
1443:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1409:
1407:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:Duke v Andler
1386:
1383:
1371:
1369:9781847319753
1365:
1361:
1360:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1305:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1288:
1282:
1278:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1214:
1198:
1191:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1125:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1105:
1101:
1094:
1091:
1078:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1049:
1043:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1022:
1018:
1011:
1008:
1003:
992:
988:
987:
979:
977:
975:
973:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
961:
957:
944:
940:
939:
931:
929:
927:
925:
923:
921:
919:
917:
915:
913:
909:
905:
900:
898:
896:
892:
888:
883:
881:
877:
873:
871:
865:
863:9780198713739
859:
855:
851:
844:
842:
838:
826:. Swarb.co.uk
825:
819:
816:
809:
805:
802:
801:
797:
795:
793:
789:
788:
782:
780:
776:
775:
770:
766:
763:
756:
753:
750:
749:
745:
742:
741:
737:
734:
733:
729:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
714:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
673:
669:
666:
665:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
645:
641:
640:
639:
633:
631:
629:
625:
618:
616:
613:
605:United States
604:
602:
600:
596:
592:
591:Lord Esher MR
587:
581:
577:
573:
570:
566:
561:
557:
554:
553:
552:
548:
546:
542:
537:
533:
530:
524:
522:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
496:
491:
487:
480:
476:
469:
464:
462:
460:
455:
451:
446:
443:
438:
436:
432:
428:
423:
421:
417:
416:Charles Mason
407:
403:
401:
393:
391:
388:
385:
381:
379:
375:
369:
367:
361:
358:
354:
351:
346:
344:
338:
336:
327:
320:
318:
315:
311:
303:
301:
297:
294:
290:
289:circumference
286:
282:
278:
273:
263:
257:
255:
250:
243:
241:
238:
234:
229:
227:
218:
211:
208:
207:
206:
204:
200:
199:40th parallel
193:
185:
183:
181:
177:
173:
168:
164:
162:
158:
154:
153:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
128:
123:
120:
117:
115:Judge sitting
113:
108:
102:
100:Prior actions
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
76:All ER Rep 99
71:
67:
63:
59:
56:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1784:
1763:
1740:
1717:
1710:Bibliography
1695:. Retrieved
1688:
1681:
1669:. Retrieved
1654:
1647:
1635:. Retrieved
1628:
1621:
1609:. Retrieved
1602:
1595:
1583:. Retrieved
1576:
1569:
1557:. Retrieved
1550:
1543:
1531:. Retrieved
1524:
1517:
1505:. Retrieved
1490:
1483:
1471:
1452:. Retrieved
1415:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1373:. Retrieved
1358:
1351:
1339:
1314:
1310:
1304:
1295:
1276:
1270:
1258:
1246:
1237:
1228:
1220:
1216:
1204:. Retrieved
1197:the original
1173:
1169:
1160:
1152:
1148:
1139:
1131:
1127:
1118:
1099:
1093:
1081:. Retrieved
1055:. Retrieved
1025:. Retrieved
1020:
1010:
1000:– via
994:. Retrieved
985:
947:. Retrieved
943:the original
937:
869:
867:
849:
828:. Retrieved
818:
791:
785:
783:
772:
768:
760:
754:
746:
738:
730:
722:
717:
708:
702:
696:
690:
684:
678:
670:
662:
656:
650:
642:
637:
623:
622:
611:
608:
598:
594:
588:
585:
579:
568:
549:
544:
540:
535:
534:
528:
526:
520:
518:
512:
508:
504:
500:
494:
489:
485:
483:
447:
439:
427:Philadelphia
424:
412:
397:
389:
386:
382:
371:
365:
363:
359:
355:
349:
347:
339:
332:
313:
309:
307:
298:
274:
270:
251:
247:
233:Cresap's War
230:
226:Philadelphia
223:
195:
169:
165:
151:
150:
149:
95:Case history
54:
36:William Penn
18:
1605:, 78 US 39"
1527:, 217 US 1"
1317:(63): 103.
651:Re Courtney
490:in personam
431:Embreeville
366:in personam
350:in personam
281:Court House
141:arbitration
64:15 May 1750
1792:Categories
1430:0521787815
1299:Chapter 4.
1238:LawTeacher
810:References
595:Moçambique
509:Moçambique
495:Moçambique
450:George III
283:; once in
186:Background
172:George III
83:Transcript
74:27 ER 1132
1331:143865757
699:1 WLR 392
304:Case name
237:George II
105:27 ER 847
88:CommonLII
69:Citations
1344:Cheshire
1251:Cheshire
1206:20 March
1083:20 March
1057:20 March
996:20 March
949:20 March
904:Cheshire
856:. 9.41.
798:See also
693:2 Ch 424
681:2 Ch 206
679:Re Smith
321:Judgment
125:Keywords
46:Chancery
1697:27 July
1671:27 July
1637:27 July
1611:27 July
1585:27 July
1559:27 July
1533:27 July
1507:27 July
1454:27 July
1375:2 April
1027:30 June
830:29 June
593:in the
61:Decided
1774:
1751:
1728:
1662:
1498:
1427:
1366:
1329:
1283:
1106:
860:
767:cited
705:Fam 11
687:Ch 483
675:AC 602
619:Canada
484:Today
293:radius
1474:
1327:S2CID
1200:(PDF)
1193:(PDF)
1051:(PDF)
1023:: 278
887:Dicey
711:
43:Court
1772:ISBN
1749:ISBN
1726:ISBN
1699:2020
1673:2020
1660:ISBN
1639:2020
1613:2020
1587:2020
1561:2020
1535:2020
1509:2020
1496:ISBN
1456:2020
1425:ISBN
1377:2015
1364:ISBN
1281:ISBN
1263:Hill
1208:2015
1104:ISBN
1085:2015
1059:2015
1029:2020
998:2015
951:2015
858:ISBN
832:2020
497:rule
418:and
1768:OUP
1745:OUP
1319:doi
854:OUP
784:In
578:In
1794::
1770:.
1747:.
1724:.
1464:^
1439:^
1401:^
1325:.
1315:63
1313:.
1236:.
1181:^
1068:^
1037:^
1019:.
991:41
959:^
911:^
894:^
879:^
866:.
852:.
840:^
515::
163:.
1780:.
1757:.
1734:.
1701:.
1675:.
1641:.
1615:.
1589:.
1563:.
1537:.
1511:.
1458:.
1433:.
1379:.
1333:.
1321::
1289:.
1210:.
1112:.
1087:.
1061:.
1031:.
1004:.
953:.
834:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
