A replication has been filed in this case to the defendant’s answer; and the'cause is put down for hearing upon the bill, ■answer and survey. The case can therefore be decided for the plaintiffs, only upon the facts which the defendant admits, as responsive to the allegations of the bill. It is therefore important, that those-facts or admissions should be well understood.
His Honor then stated the. substance of the answer as given ahoye, and proceeded: It is therefore the opinion of the defendant, that the plaintiff conveyed land to him, which neither he nor his brother believed was included in the boundaries -set forth in the deed, and which they both knew belonged to another person. The bill is filed to rectify the mistake.
JBut the defendant insists, that as the parties were ignorant of the lines, and had not the means of ascertaining them by a survey, the vendors meant to sell, and he to purchase all the lands described in the deed to the elder Hugh, grandfather of the plaintiffs^ — that he looked to the paper title only. If a person was purchasing another’s interest in lands, in no inspect located, there might he some ground for such a claim. Hut in this, case, the parties had a knowledge of the land sol'd, but not of its particular boundaries ; for the defendant describes it as low, flat land, uncleared and cover's.! with water in the winter. And neither party ever a .'.¡ned, that í'hamberlarul’s land was part of it. For it seems *38that Bartlett, who claimed under Chamherland, was in actual possession of that land. r
The defendant certainly got a title for less land than tjm boundaries of his deed cover. But deducting the Chamherland tract, the deed conveys more land than six hundred and forty acres, the quantity it calls for.
Per Curiam — Injunction eereetuater.