49. General exceptions to the auditor's report ought not to be made. Every exception ought to point out a particular error, Ib. 50. The court of chancery neither decides on titles to property, nor determines important litigated points of law, Ib. 51. The decisions of the chancellor as judge of the land office are not conclusive, but may be reviewed in the court of chancery by origi. nal bill. West vs. Jarrett, 538 52. A person having an equitable claim to land included in a patent granted to another person may by bill in equity compel a conveyance, Ib. 542 53. The court of chancery has full power to decide all questions of law and fact which arise in that court. Hilleary vs. Crow, 542 51. The practice of referring such questions to a court of law and a jury, originated in the superiority of the trial by jury, but can be dispensed with in the discretion of the court of chancery, lb.

55.

Where the matter in dispute is small, such reference should not be made, but every thing should be decided by the court of chancery in the first instance, 16 56. Where the defendant has agreed

to convey to the complainant a tract of land, and to give him possession on a certain day, and takes the complainant's bond for the purchase money, and he af terwards sues on the bond, and gets a judgment, the court of chancery will enjoin such judg. ment, and compel the defendant to make allowance to the complainant for the value of such part of the land as he may fail to give possession of at the time agreed on, from such time until possession be in fact de ivered, 16. 57. Where land had been included in

a grant by frand-Decreed, that the part so included should be conveyed by the grantee thereof to the grantee in another grant for the same land. Garretson vs. Cole, $73, 384

538

West vs. Jarrett, 58. The court of chancery will not distinguish between fraud perpetrated by a man on his own account, and that in behalf of another. Garretson vs. Cole, 374

59. After a decree of the court of chancery has been affirmed in the court of appeals, and service of a copy thereof on the opposite party, who neglects to comply, &c. on petition, an attachment ordered, &e. lb. 377 to 386 60. Where an attachment has been disobeyed, and various proceedings thereon,

Ib 378, 381, 382, 383, 386. 61. Although a decree to convey, &c. is in law equivalent to a convey

ance, yet an attachment is eligible in order that all doubts be dissipated. The process which will best serve (the title having vested by the decree,) is an injunction to deliver possession, 16. 386, 387. 62. Decreed that a party having ne glected to comply to execute a deed by the original decree directed, such decree operated as the said decree would have operated to convey, &c and that an injunction issue directing the party to deliver possession of the land, &c. 16. 387 63. Where there was not sufficient evidence to establish as a relief against a grant that the rules of the land office had been violated by the grantee therein; that a caveat against the grant's issuing was discharged on a false sugges tion, and the grant cbtained by fraud, Ib. 398

See Bill of Exceptions 4.

Conveyance 26.

Issues from Chancery.
Relation 6.

COURT OF LAW. See County Court.

COVENANT.

1. If an agent contracts under seal, can an action of covenant be supported on the contract in the name of the principal? M‹Donough vs. Templeman, 156

2. Will a court of equity enforce a voluntary covenant to convey land? Browne vs. Browne et. al.

430 3. If the consideration in a deed is blood, marriage, or natural love and affection, it will operate as a covenant to stand seised. Cheney's Lessee vs. Watkins, 527

4. What stipulation in a covenant is a condition precedent. Hampton,

Harper vs. 672, 679, 682

5. The term warranty is not to be ta-
ken in a confined sense. It must
be taken to signify any engagement
by which a liability was created,

lb. 673

6. To dissolve a covenant, something
of equal solemnity must be shown.
If the breach has accrued, accord
and satisfaction is a good plea, but
not otherwise,
lb. 673
7. How far a release, not under seal,
will amount to a satisfaction or dis-
charge of the breach of a covenant
under seal,
lb 673

See Contract 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20.

CREDITOR.

See Application of Payments.
Lien

Preference.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
1. Where a felony is committed in
another state, and the felon with
the stolen goods in his possession
is arrested in this state, it is cogni-
zable by the courts of this state.
Cumming vs The state,

340
2. Whether or not a writ of error is
the proper process for removing
the proceedings in a criminal pro-
secution to the court of appeals?
16.

3. Quere. As to the manner of certi.
fying the proceedings in a criminal
prosecution removed to the court
of appeals,
Ib.
4. Where a statute directs a fine and
imprisonment to be imposed for an
offence, the court are bound to in-
flict both if the party is found
guilty. The United St ites vs. Vicke-

DEBT.

See Application of Payments.
Award 6, 7.

Heir at Law 1.
Interest, 12.

Preference 1, 2.

Purchase Money 2.
Surety 4

DEBT BOOKS.

See Ejectment 26.
Evidence 13.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
See Application of Payments.
Lien.

DECLARATION.

See Amendment 1.

Assault and Battery 1.
Slander.

DECLARATIONS.

1. The declarations neither of a testa-
tor, the witnesses, nor the drafts-
man of a will, are evidence to prove
such will. Collins et ux Lessee vs.
Elliott,
2
2. The declarations of a deceased wit-
ness to a will are not evidence of
his signature. Collins et ux Lessee
vs Nicols et ux.

399
3. The declarations of a person who
is dead, and whose deposition was
taken under a commission to per-
petuate the bounds of land defec-
tively executed, may be given in
evidence in an action of ejectment
by the person who took the depo-
sition as a commissioner, though
not legally empowered to adminis-
ter an oath, and he may turn to
the deposition to refresh his me
mory; but such declarations are
not to be received as made on oath.
Tolley's Lessee vs. Ford,
413

4. The declarations and showings of
the patentee of a tract of land, as
to the beginning, as located on the
plots in an action of ejectment, by
the party claiming under him, are
not legal evidence for the purpose
of impeaching the credib lity of
testimony proving the patentee had
at a different time made different
declarations, and showed a differ
ent place, &c.
Ib. 414
See Bequest 1.

Hearsay Evidence.

DECREE.

See Admiralty Court,
Conveyance 25.
Court of Chancery.
Evidence 85.

1. Where it was held that a testator
by his will had devised to his heir
at law the same estate in lands
which he would have had by de-
scent, and that he took by descent
and not by purchase. · Philips ro,
Dashiell's Lessee,

478
2. There is no distinction, under the
act to direct de cents, (1726, ch.
45,) between brothers and sisters
(children of the same father,) of
the whole and half blood, where
the estate descended from the fa-
ther Lowe et al. vs. Maccubbin
et al.
550

See Hearsay Evidence 1.
Heir at Law 6.

DESCRIPTION.
1. A deed expressing to convey a
moiety of a tract of land, descri
bing the morety by courses and
distances, and to contain a particu
lar number of acres, is only com
petent to convey so much of the
land as is included within the lines
expressed in the deed, even though
the quantity be less than half of
the tract included in the patent.
Carroll et al. Lessee, vs. E. and S.
Nerwood,
173

See Conveyance 2.

Devise 1, 2.
Fieri Facias 4.

Dorsey's

193

DEVISE.
1. Under the following devise, viz.
I give and bequeath to my grand
son J. D. my Patuxent plantation,
and the land thereunto adjoining
called Dorsey's Search, lying in
Baltimore county, to hold to him
his heirs," &c-Held, that the
whole of the land included in the
tract called Dorsey's Search passed
to and vested in the devisee J D.
under the will, although it lay
partly in Anne Arundel and partly
in Baltimore counties."
Lessee vs. Hammond,
2. A. devised as follows: "I give and
bequeath to S. B. A. all the land
I hold or claim right to on the W.
side of a small drain that leads from
the Duck Pond; also the land over
said drain lying on Piney Branch,
formerly called Pork Hall and
Bachelor's Delight, lying in Charles
county, to him and his heits law-
fully begotten of his body, for
ever."-eld, that the words “ly-
ing in Charles county" constitute
part of the description of the last
mentioned tracts, and do not limit
the operation to the first part of
the devise; that the words to him
and his heirs," &c. define the es-
tate the devisee is to have in the
lands, and are as applicable to the
first part of the devise as the last,
and S. B A. took an estate tail in
all the lands devised to him. That
on the W side of the drain" means
all the lands which lay on the W.
side of a meridian N. line extended
from the Duck Pond.
Lessee vs. Berry,

Berry's

417

3. Where a testator, leaving a widow
and two sons, by his will, made
before the act to direct descents,
devised one third of his real and
personal estate to his widow du-
ring her widowhood, and to his el-
dest son he devised in fee the land

in question The widow married
again and had issue, and the two
sons died (the youngest first,) in-
testate and without issue Held,
that the devisee took by descent,
not by purchase Philips vs. Da
shiell's Lessee,
478
4. GT. by his will devised as follows:
"I give all my estate, both real and
personal to R M to him and his
heirs for ever; but in case of his
death before mine, or his not having
disposed of it before his death, either
in whole or in part, then I give and
bequeath my said estate, both

DIMINUTION.
1. A writ of diminution granted to
correct a judgment entered in the
county court for the sum awarded
by arbitrators in an action of debt
on bond, instead of being entered
for the penalty of the bond, &c.
Fisher vs. The State use of Johnson,
416

2 The court of appeals refuse to a-
ward a writ of diminution to the
general count to certify the record
by that court inspected in deciding
on the issue to a plea of nul tiel re-
cord. Dorsey's Ex'rs. us. Whet
croft's Adm'r.
463

DISCHARGE.
See Insolvent Debtor 1, ?.

3. One of the witnesses to a will is
sufficient to prove it; but where all
are dead, there must be proof of
the hand writing of the testator,
and of all the witnesses,
4. A fieri facias issued by a justice of
the peace on a judgment rendered
on warrant, held to be void for the
want of a return day, and that no
title passed under a sale of the land
made in pursuance thereof. West's
Lessee vs. Hughes et al.

6

5. Where the grant of a tract of land
operated by relation from the date
of the certificate of survey, and
vested the legal title of the land in
the grantee on the day of the sur-
vey,
lb 8
6. Various orders of the judge of the
land office for correcting and re-
correcting a certificate of survey
on hearing of a caveat, Ib. 9
7. Whenever the same land is includ-
ed in the certificates of both par-
ties to a caveat, it is considered
that each has caveated his antago-
nist,
fb. 10
8. A grant issued on a certificate of
survey of two separate tracts of
land,
Ib. 13.
9. A person being in possession of
part of a tract of land under a deed
conveying to him the whole tract
may grant the whole by deed of
bargain and sale, without entering
on that part of which he is not in
possession, notwithstanding an ad-
verse possession by enclosures.
Gittings's Lessee vs. Hall,

14

10. Where a grantor conveys land by
name, and lays the same off by
actual survey, excluding a part
so conveyed, it will not control
the operation of the deed to pass
the whole,
Ib
11. An ancient deed not having the
words This indenture, and no me-
ney consideration being express-
ed therein, an attested copy there-
of not permitted to be read in
evidence,
Ib. 16
12. Whether or not a deed was in-
dented is for the court to decide,
on inspection of the original,
16. 16
13. A copy from the record of a dee13,
which does not require enrolment
cannot be received in evidence;
but the deed itself must be pro-
duced as the best evidence, Ib 16
14 If the original deed is lost, de-
stroyed, or in possession of the
adverse party, which must be
proved to the court, a copy is ad-
missible in evidence, if proved to
be a true copy by a person who
has compared it with the original;
and a copy from the record may
be received in evidence if posses-
sion has gone accordingly for up-
wards of 4 years,
Ib 16
15. The jury may presume a valid
deed had been executed, although
a defective deed is produced, there
being evidence of possession of
the land by and under the gran-
t.c in such defective deed, lb 18
16. A conveyance of land acknow-
ledged by the grantor before two
justices of the peace of a county
in which he did not reside, and
wherein the land is not situated
-Held to be inoperative, Ib. 18
17. Parol evidence may be received
to prove that a grantor was a re-
sident of the county in which the
deed was acknowledged, although
stated in the deed as residing in a
different county,
Ib 18
18. Evidence is not admissible at the
trial of an action of ejectment to
prove that the locations made on
the plots in the cause were not in
compliance with the party's in-
structions to the surveyor, Ib 22
19. To prove a witness interested in
the event of the suit by holding
land adjoining that in dispute,
the land held by the witness must
be located on the plots, 18.23
20. A land commission, defectively
executed, not permitted to be
given in evidence, it not being