EJECTMENT. Miller claimed under a patent to Nathan Bryan, beginning at a corner tree, thence South 80 East, 40 poles to Walter Lane's line. There was no actual survey: the 40 poles were completed before arriving at Lane's line.—the second line was with Walter Lane’s line to his corner, a certain course and distance; but that distance would not have reached the corner, supposing the line to be drawn from the point of intersection of the first line with Lane’s line.
A line ought to be extended to reach the corner called for, if the distance mentioned falls short.
If the first line extended to Lane’s line; and if the second line went with Lane’s line, to his corner; then the land claimed by the plaintiff, was within Bryan’s grant: but if the first line stopped at the end of 40 poles, the grant did not include the land claimed.
*162 Haywood for the plaintiff.
The description of the first line of the grant, refers to two terminations, namely, the end of the 40 poles, and the intersection with Lane's line: as one of these must necessarily be rejected, that one ought to be adopted, which will best effectuate the intention of the grant. The distance must always be, of necessity, a more uncertain description than any other; for the measurement is made by chain-carriers, generally unacquainted with the business, and is in most instances erroneous: it is not therefore to be resorted to, unless all other marks fail. It will be disregarded, if there is a corner tree found in the course, agreeing with the description of the tree called for in the grant; it will be disregarded, as well as the tree itself, if there is a natural boundary; and it is as reasonable that it should be rejected, if the line of another tract be called for, that is capable of being proved and is generally known to the neighbourhood.
Harris for the defendant.
The certainty that is attached to a marked corner or natural boundary, may with propriety cause the distance, and even the course to be disregarded; but the line of another tract, being altogether uncertain, ought not to have the same effect. It may be further removed than the surveyor supposes; or it may be in a different direction from what he apprehends: calling for it in either case, is a mistake which produces not merely an error in distance, but in situation. But there can be no mistake with respect to the *163existence or situation of a natural boundary. If these principles be correct (and they derive support from a decision made by Judge Moore in this court, in the case of Cobb versus Lostin,) it follows that the first line will terminate at the completion of the distance, mentioned in the grant. Bradford versus Hill, Haywood’s Rep. 22. There is another ground upon which this construction may be supported; that when two claims are inserted in in a grant, which are repugnant to each other, the latter should be rejected, and the former alone regarded; Vin. Abr. tit, grant (Ha. 10, Pl. 4.) The application of this rule will correspond with the intention of the maker of this grant, to whom it could not be known where Lane's line was.
Haywood in reply.
The plaintiff in the case cited, afterwards brought a new ejectment, which was tried at Halifax before Judge Moore, whose opinion was in favour of the argument now used far the plaintiff. He directed the jury to depart from the course and go to the corner called for in the grant.
The grant to Bryan was made by the King, and the surveyor who made the plot was his officer: as it admits of two constructions, that one should be given to it, which is most in favour of the grantee. The line ought therefore to be extended to that of Lane’s patent.
Verdict for the Plaintiff.
