Ib. 23

was

stated that the specific notice re-
quired had been given, lb 23
21. Where the plaintiff makes two lo
cations of his pretensions on the
plots, and there is a general ver-
dict and judgment, such judg-
ment is erroneous,
32. The jury were directed, that if it
appeared to them that the deed
for the land, for which the eject-
ment was brought, from the de-
fendant to the lessor of the plain-
tiff, for the consideration of £50,
was composed of money actually
Jent, a bond cancelled, &c that
then the deed was not usur ous
and void, although it should ap-
pear that a parol contract
made at the time of executing the
deed to pay 9 per cent. interest on
the said sum of £500. But if it
appeared that the money, said to
be loaned, was not actually lent,
but a less sum, so that the lessor
was to receive by virtue of the
deed and bond a sum for interest
exceeding the rate of 6 per cent.
per annum on the consideration
in the deed, that then the deed
was usurious and void Hogmire's
Lessee vs. Chapline,
23. The Lord Proprietary had not the
royal rights of the king of Great
Britain, and he might be barred
by the statute of limitations and
adverse possession of lands, which
he claimed by escheat, &c. Rus-
sell's Lessee vs. Baker,

h

29

71

24. Where the Lord Proprietary and
J. Y were tenants in common of a
tract of land in 166, at the time
when the proprietary was in Mary-
land, where he remained for two
years thereafter, and J Y enter-
ed upon and claimed the whole
tract adverse to the right of the
proprietary, &c and where J. Y.
and those claiming under him,
had the uninterrupted possession
of the land. claiming the whole
from the year 1687 to 1780-
Held, that the Lord Proprietary
was barred by the adversary pos-
session of J Y. and those claim-
ing under him,
Ib. 78
25. The Lord Proprietary being bar-
red of his right to escheat land
by limitations, his lease was held
to be inoperative to pass the same,
& c.
Ib. 78
26. Copies from the rent rolls and
debt books read in evidence.
Gittings's Lessee vs. Hall,
Russell's Lessee, vs. Baker,

VOL. I.

18

76

99

Hall's Lessee vs. Gough, 122, 123,
125 Carroll vs. Norwood, 185
27. Where D. was in possession of
vacant land, which the propri-
etary afterwards grants to P. who
enters, but was ousted, and con-
tinued out of possession at the
time of making his will and
death-Held, that the possession
of D. was an intrusion, and that
P. was not disseised, but that the
land passed by his will to his de-
visees. Russell's Lessee vs. Baker,
83 (nte)

28. A tenant in common of an undi-
vided tract of land cannot convey
his moiety by courses and dis.
tances. Carroll et al. Lessee vs.
Norwood,

100
29. A deed for part of a tract of land
cannot be read in evidence, if de-
fence is taken on warrant, unless
such deed, and the courses and
distances therein described, are
located on the plots,

16.
30. Leave given to a defendant in
ejectment to narrow his delence
taken on the plots, on payment
of costs. Howard's Lessee vs.
Cromwell,
115
31. The court refused to direct thejury,
that the title of A to racant land,
(not contiguous to the original
tract,) included in a resurvey
unde: an elder war ant and a ju-
nior grant, should have priority
to the title of B to the same va-
can y included in a surve under
a junio common warrant and an
elder grant, but held, that A.
by his special warrant of resur-
vey acquired an equitable inter-
est in the vacant land contiguous
thereto, from the date of the war-
rant and that his grant would
relate to the date of the certificate
of survey as to such adjoining
vacancy, but not to give title to
any land separated by an elder
survey, and included in the grant
under which B claimed, lb. 116
32. The jury are to de ermine and as-
certain from evidence, the true
position and location of the lands
in controversy,
Ib. 118
33. The jury are to decide on the pro-
priety and justice of allowing or
not allowing the variation of the
compass, and the rate or rule of
such variation according to the
evidence in the case, Ib. 118
St. Deeds for different parts of a whole
tract of land located on the plots,
may be read in evidence, though

1.9

such deeds are not themselves
severally located. Hall's Lessee
rs. Gough,
35. The jury may presume a grant
regularly issued where there had
been a certificate of survey re-
turned, and sundry conveyances
and possession by persons claim-
ing thereunder,
Ib. 120
36. The register of the land office ex-
amined as a witness as to the loss
of records of his office, and as to
certain practices which prevailed
therein previous to the revolu
lion,
Ib 126
7. The court refused to direct the
jury that the following expres-
sions in a grant of land, viz.
"Then running W 60 perches
with a tract of land lately taken up
for G Y. &c then running WS
W 200 perches with the said land,
then running S 23 perches,
bounding on the said Y's land,”

&c. must be located so as to make

the course then running W 65
perches," &c. run with and bind
on the land of G Y. from the
place where the sa d course reach-
es and strikes by the true loca-
tion thereof the said G. Y's land,
Ridgely et ux. Lesce, vs. Norwood,

128
38. An objection by the defendant
that the record transmitted under
a writ of certiorari issued at his
instance, was not under seal, over-
ruled,
Ib.
39. The time when a deed was re-
corded is a matter of fact or the

172

jury to decide, and they may pre-
sume it was recorded in time if
possession of the land thereby
conveyed has been held under it.
Carroll et al. Lessee, vs. E. & S.
Norwood,
40. A deed expressing to convey a
moiety of a tract of land, but des-
cribing it by courses and distanc-
es, is only competent to convey
so much of the land as is includ-
ed within the lines expressed in
the deed,
lb 173
41. Evidence may be given of posses-
sion under a delective deed which
is located on the plots, although
particular places of possession are
not located,
Ib. 173
42. An ancient deed not recorded in
the records of the proper county,
is evidence without proof of its
execution, if possession of the
land has been held under it; and
the jury may find livery of seisin,
&c.
Ib. 174 175

es,

43. Ancient bonds of conveyance ad-
mitted in evidence on proof of
the hands writing of the witness-
16 174
44. A deed although located on the
plots by a wrong date, may be
read in evidence in support of the
location,
Ib 176
45. Evidence as to where a tree stood,
not admitted unless the place is
located on the plots,
16.1.7
46. Deeds of bargain and sale only,
before the act of 1766, ch 14,
could be acknowledged and re-
corded,
Ib. 178
47. There is no instance of a deed's
being acknowledged and record-
ed for sale custody; and a judge
has no authority to take the ac-
knowledgment of such a deed,
Ib. 178
48. A copy of a deed not requiring
enrolment is not evidence, nor is
a copy of a deed not recorded in
time, proof of the original deed,
Ib.

49. A misrecital of a deed as to its
date is not material,

16.
50 Where the grantee in a defective
deed is in possession of the land
under a bond of conveyance,
such deed will operate to convey,
as a release, the tee to the gran-
tee, and a subsequent deed from
the grantor to another person
will not operate to convey the
same land,
lb 179

51.

But such defective deed will
not operate as a bargain and ale
so as to affect the title of such
other person, unless he had no-
tice, &c
Ib.
52. A deed recorded by decree of the

chancellor under the act of 75,
ch. 72, s 11, is to have the same
validity, as if it had been record-
ed in time, against all persons
who do not come within the ex-
ceptions contained in that act,
lb ise
53. If two defendants in a joint action
of ejectment appear and take de-
fence, neither of them will be
permitted to sever his defence at
the trial,
16 182
54. If the adversary possessions of the
defendant are not located on the
plots, no evidence can be given
of them,
16 183
55. The record of an ancient deed
appearing not to have been sign-
ed or sealed by the grantor, but
acknowledged by him, admitted
in evidence,

56. Where A is in possession of land

under a deed to him from B, a
copy of an ancient deed not en-
rolled in time, from C to B for
the same land, though misrecited
in the deed from B to A, with the
rent roll entries, &c are evidence
sufficient for the jury to presume
and find a deed from C to B.
Ib. 184
57. A copy of a deed not enrolled in
time, made by a clerk under seal
of office, is entitled to no more
weight or credit, than a copy ta-
ken by a private person,
Ib.
58. A judgment entered on a verdict
for the plaintiff in ejectment for
land described to begin at a point,
(not located on the plots.) to be
found by running a certain line,
&c being for land not described
within any particufar location
made on the plois, but which was
included within the plaintiff's
pretensions,
Ib. 186
59. In all cases of ambiguity arising
on the face of a grant, as to the
location of the land, the jury is
the proper tribunal to decide the
fact of location, which may well
be ascertained in such cases by
evidence de hors the grant. Dor-
sey's Lessee vs. Hammond, 201
60. The following expressions in a
grant of a tract of land, described

as lying on the W side of the N.
branch of Patuxent river, begin-
ning at a bounded ted oak stan-
ding by the said branch and run-
ning, &c. (three courses,) to a
bound white oak standing by the
said river, then bou ding on said
river running S. 5 degrees E. 270
perches, then by a straight line to
the first bounded tree; and also the
following expressions in another
grant of a tract of land, described
as beginning at three hounded
white oaks standing by Patuxent
river, and running and bounding
on the said river N. 4 degrees E.
87 perches, then N, &c. (sundry
courses), then N. 1 degree W 48
perches to a bound white oak by
the river, then S. 47 degrees E.
38 perches to a bound white oak,
then by a straight line to the
first bounded white oaks Held
by the court of appeals not to he
so plain and explicit as to ex
clude all doubt as to the location
of those tracts, viz Whether
the expressions in the last men-
tioned grant bound that tract on
the river after the first line, or the

expressions in the first mentioned
grant bound the last line thereof
on the river; but being cases of
ambiguity the jury was the pro-
per tribunal to decide the fact of
location,
lb. 191 194 201
61. In cases where no doubt or ambi-
guity exists on the face of a grant
as to the location, as in the first
line of the last above mentioned
tract, or fourth line of the first
above mentioned tract, calling
for and bounding on the river, it
is within the province of the court
to say that no evidence out of the
grant shall be offered to the jury,
to prove that hose lines did not
bound on and terminate on the
river, and thereby contradicting
the terms of the grant as to those
lines,
16. 201
62. Under the following devise, viz.

I give and bequeath to my
grandson J D. my Patuxent
plantation, and the land thereunto
adjoining called Dorsey's Search,
lying in Balt more county, to hold
to him, his heirs," &c -Heid,
that the whole of the land inclu-
ded 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,
Fb. 93
63. The lines of an elder survey will
prevail over those of a junior
survey where they interfere with
each other,
lb. 202
64. Whether or not adversary posses-
sion must be by actual enclosures
for a continued and uninterrupted
series of 20 years before the ac-
tion of ejectment is brought? Ib 202
65 The opinions of learned counsel
taken before the action was
brought, not permitted to be read
to the jury at the trial thereof for
any purpose,
lb. 202
66. Proceedings will be stayed in an

action of ejectment, unless the
costs in a former ejectment be-
tween the same parties, are paid,
Bull's Lessee vs Sheredine, 206
67. A verdict in a former suit where

the judgment was reversed for
error in fact, is not evidence in a
trial of a new action of ejectment.
Richardson's Lessce vs. Parsons,

253

68. Where the grant of a tract of land

described it as lying on the E.
side of Chesapeake bay, and on
the S. side of a river in the said
bay called St. Michael's river,

next adjoining the land of H M.
beginuing at the said H. M's.
northermo-t bounded oak, run-
ning N. E and by N. up the
river for breadth 1.8 perches to
a marked pine by a marsh, bound-
ing on the E. by a line drawn S.
and by E from the said pine for
length 320 perches, on the S. by
a line drawn S W. and by S for
breadth from the end of the S.
and by E. line until it intersect a
parallel drawn from the land of
H. M, on the W. with said land
and parallel, on the N with said
river, containing &c. Held that
the sad tract be located fro. its
beginning to the place where the
second bounder thereof stood,
and from such place, according
to the course and distance ex-
pressed in the grant, running. 20
perches to the end of the second
line, according to such course
and distance and from thence,
according to the course and dis-
tance expressed in the grant for
the third line, to the lace where
the third line shall intersect with
a parallel drawn from 1nd of H.
M. and from thence, according
to the gran, to the beginning,
(the jury finding from the evi-
dence the places where the se-
cond bounder stood, and where
the third line intersec'ed with the
parallel,) although such location
ruas the tract across the land of
H. M. Gibson's Lessee vs. Smith,
253
GO A record in an action of trespass
9. e f between parties under
whom the plain off and defendant
in an action of ejectment for the
same land, severally clain, read
in evidence,
7b 256
70. Depositions taken under a land

commission defectively executed,
not permitted to be read in evi-
dence; and the jury instructed
that the record of be depositions
and the application to have them
read, and the court's refu-al, are
not to be considered as evidence
that the commission had been
executed in any manner or had
been returned. or that the deposi
trons of certain persons had been
taken, or were then living or had
ever lived,
Jb. 258
71. The record of a land commission
defectively executed, not permit-
ted to be given in evidence to
show that a person of whom evi-

dence was offered, was not the
person examined by the commis-
sioners,
16 258
72. The commissioners appointed un-
der the land law of 715, ch 45,
acted judicially and their judg
ment, unless reversed on appeal,
is conclusive between the parties;
and as between strangers the pro-
ceedings are evidence in the same
manner that hearsay is admissible
to prove the bounds of land.
Da is et al. Lessee, vs Batty, 264
73. The deposition bt a witness taken
under à land commission legally
executed, cannot be read in evi-
dence, unless there is proof of
the death of the winess,

Ib 264 252
74. Where a grant describes the tract
of land as lying on the W side of
Che apoke buy, and in the Wisde
of irer of that buy beginning
at a marked ak standing near a
marsh of the said river, called
Selby's Marsh, tounding on the
E with a line drawn N W and by
N from the said oak, &c. (run-
ning sundry courses having calls,)
unto the land of J B. and then
with the sed land, containing, &c.
Held by the court of appeals to
be ambiguous, and therefore left
to the determination of the jury,
Ib. 267 2-2

75. The allowance for the attendance

of a witness, who was subprenaed,
but not sworn at the trial, is not
to be taxed in the costs, unless
directed by the court, on applica-
tion,
Ib. 270 (note)
76. The deposition of a witness taken
upon a survey of land made un-
der a warrant of resurvey issued
in a former action of ejectment,
between persons under whom the
parties, in a new action of eject
neat, cla m, not permitted to be
read in evidence in such new ac-
tion, although the witness was a
nonresident of the state, and up-
wards of 80 years of age, due di-
ligence not having been used to
procure the attendance of the
witness. Darnall's Lessee es.
Goodwin,
282
77. Under what circumstances such a
deposition may be read in evi-
dence,
78. The jury are not estopped or con-
cluded by the locations made
by ether party on the plots in
an ac ion of ejectment, so that
the part for which they give their

lb.

53

293
Hawkins et al. Lessee, vs. Burress
et al.
Heath's Lessee vs. Eden's Guar
dian,
751
80. Delence on warrant taken in an
action of ejectment may be chan
ged to general delence on the de-
fendant's paving the costs of the
survey. Cheney's Lessee vs. Wat-
kins,
295
81. Where a grant of land contained
the following descriptions; be
ginning at a bounded white oak
standing about 20 pe ches on the
E side of Ante-eatum, running
thence N &c (twelve courses,)
then S 4 degrees WV 243 perches
to the end f :3 perches on the
fourth line of Good Luck, then
with said land reversed S. 28 de-
gre's W. 73 perches, S 82 de-
grees W. 46 perches, N. 58 degrees
W. 75 per hes, then S. 73 degrees
W 20 perches, &c Held, that
the true location of the grant was
to run the course, S. 28 degrees
173 perches, reversed with Goed
Luck, then course and distance
accord ng to the expressions in
the grant. Kirkpatrick's Lessee
vs Kyger,

298
82. he time when a manor was laid
unt is a matter of fact for the
jury to determine there being
no record thereof to be found.

Ringgold's Lessee vs. Malott,

86. An attempt to take up land within
the proprietary's reserve was a
fraud, and no equitable interest
was acquired in the land so taken

up,
Ib.
87. The state stands in the place of
the proprietary as to all lands he-
longing to him at the time of the
act of confiscation,

lb.
88. It was the practice of the land
office to reject all certificates of
surveys which included land ly-
ing within the reserves of Cono-
cocheague Manor,
Ib. 310

Be-

89. Where the following expressions
used in a grant of land, viz
ginning at a marked oak standing
on the point and running NE
100 perches to another marked
oak standing by Hambleton's
creek side, and running from the
said oak E a little northerly up
the said creek and branch 400
perces to a marked beech tree
standing by the fresh run side-
It was held by the general court,
that the last course should be a
straight line, to be run from the
oak to the beech; but reversed,
on appeal, by the court of appeals.
Thompson et al. Lessee, vs. Brown,
335
90. Relation of a grant to the certifi-
cate of survey, so as to overreach
a prior grant for the same land,
refused, the certificate not hav-
ing been returned, nor the com-
position money paid within the
time limited by the rules of the
land office. Beall's Lessee vs.
Beall,
346
91 If the surveyor at the time of sur-
veying a junior tract of land, run
the elder adjoining tracts without
regard to the calls therein, or
correcting the variation, then to
ascertain the beginning of the
junior tract at any future period,
the elder tracts must be run with-
out regard to the calls therein
or any allowance for variation.
Webb's Lessee vз Beard, 349
92. l'arol evidence is not admissible
to prove that the survey or never
did actually run out or survey the
land included in a certificate of
survey returned by him, until af
ter a grant had issued thereon,
lb.

93 The statute of 21 James I, ch. 16,

respecting the limitation of ac-
tions, has been adopted by the
courts of Maryland as applicable