Under the following entry,
"H. R. enters two thousand acres in Kentucky by virtue of a
warrant for military services performed by him in the last war, in
the fork of the first fork of Licking, running up each fork for
quantity,"
it appeared in evidence that at the first fork of Licking, the
one fork was known and generally distinguished by the name of the
south fork, and the other by the name of the Main Licking, or the
Blue Lick Fork, and that some miles above this place the south fork
again forked,
held that the entry could not be satisfied
with lands lying in the first fork.
In such a case, the entry could not be explained and the survey
supported by oral testimony. The notoriety and names of places may
be shown by such testimony, but the words of an entry are to be
construed by the court as any other written instrument.
Page 22 U. S. 574
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This case depends entirely on the question whether the entry
under which the appellees claim has been surveyed on the land for
which it calls.
The entry is in these words:
"Holt Richeson enters 2,000 acres in Kentucky by virtue of a
warrant for military services performed by him in the last war in
the fork of the first fork of Licking, running up each fork for
quantity."
It is shown in testimony that at the first fork of Licking, the
one fork was known and generally distinguished by the name of the
South Fork and the other by the name of the Main Licking or the
Blue Lick Fork. Some miles above this place the South Fork again
forks. The land of the appellees has been surveyed in the first
fork.
It is contended by the appellants that the entry calls for land
in the second fork, and that the survey is made on land which will
not satisfy its words.
The Court concurs in this opinion. The first fork of the first
fork cannot be the first fork itself. Whatever difficulties may
attend the attempt to place the lands properly, the Court feels
none in
Page 22 U. S. 575
saying that the entry cannot be satisfied with lands lying in
the first fork.
Some other objections were made in argument which it is
unnecessary to notice, as this is completely decisive of the
case.
It may not, however, be improper to say that the attempt of the
appellees to explain their entry and to support their survey by
depositions cannot avail them. It is the proper province of
testimony to show the notoriety and names of places, but not to
explain a written instrument. That is the proper province of the
court. The judges must construe the words of an entry or of any
other title paper according to their own opinion of the words as
they are found in the instrument itself, and not according to the
opinion of witnesses, who may or may not be selected for the
purpose.
The decree of the circuit court perpetuating the injunction
awarded to the appellees to restrain the appellants from proceeding
on their judgment in ejectment is erroneous and ought to be
Reversed and the bill of the plaintiffs in the circuit court
dismissed.