“This cause was argued at the last session of the court, and taken under advisement . . . When this cause was heard at the April term 1818(a), the nature of the proprietary title to the soil of Pennsylvania generally, and to the asserted manor of Springetsburg in particular, was fully examined and discussed by this court; and to the opinion delivered in that case, in relation to those parts of it, we now refer for the purpose of avoiding the unnecessary repetition of the same matter. It was then stated that, by force of certain concessions, or agreements made, and rules and practices of the land office adopted by the original proprietary, all persons complying with the prescribed terms on which the territorial lands of the province were offered for individual appropriation, acquired a title to the portion of land so ap­propriated by them; not only against other private individuals who might thereafter attempt to appropriate the same lands, but even against the proprietary himself, unless he had previously, and by some act of notoriety, evinced his intention to withdraw such land from the general mass, and to appropriate it to his own use, in satisfaction of what .was denominated his tenths, and that such intention was made known by a warrant or order to survey such reserves, and surveys thereof were accordingly made for his use. But that after such notorious appropriation of any particular portion of the land for the use of the proprietary, no individual could acquire a title to any portion of the tract so reserved without a special agreement with the proprietary, which might, or might not be in the common terms, as he might please.”