EJECTMENT. He claimed under a patent to Nathan B Trent; beginning at a corner tree, theme S. 80, E. 40 poles to Walter Lane’s line. There was no actúa’ sm vey ; the 40 poles were completed before arriving at Louie’s line. The second line was •with Lane’s line to his cormr, a certain course and distance, but that distance would not hat % reached the > >vm r. Supposing the line to be drawn from the point uf cuna of the first line with Lane’s line ; if the fust line exumded to Ease’s line, and if the second line went .with Lane's line to the corner, then the land claimed by the plaintiff was within Bryant’s grant; if the first line stepped at the end of 40 poles, the land in question was not included. ,
For the plaintiff it was argued,
that the description of the first line in the patent refern-d to two terminations, the end of the 40 poles, and the intersection of Lane’s line, and one of them must necessarily be rejected. That one should be adopted which would best attain the intention of the grant. The distance is always a very uncertain description, more so than any other, for the measurement was made by chain earners unacquainttd with the business, and in most instances is erroneous ; it is not therefore to be resorted to unless all other marks fail; it will be disregarded, if there be a comer tree found in the course agreeing with the description of the tree called for in the grant. It will be disregarded, as also will be the tree itself, if there be a natural boundary, and by the same reason it will be disregarded if the line of another tract he called for, for that is generally capable of being proved and fixed, and is for the must part known to the neighborhood.
£ contra,
it was argued, that though a marked corner or a natural boundary may cause the dislauce and even the couise to be disregarded, a line of another tract wcui.l not, for that is very uncertain ; it mav be íuithér removed than the suiveyor suspects, or may be in a different direction ; in either of which cases, if the surveyor calls lor it, he will be mistaken, and then the error lies notin ihe distance but in calling ior a line which is not where he supposes. 1 here can be no mistake with respect to the existence or situation of a natural boundary. A decision made by Judge Moore in this court corresponds with the principles now contend-id for. If these pnncipks be the proper ones then a line is not .quivalent in point of certainty [to a naturul boundary, and will bu entitled to the same influence which that would, and of *161cáerse the first line will terminate at the completion of the clis, tuace mentioned in the deed. He cited the case of Bradford vs. Hill, in Haywood’s Reports, where the court would not depart from the course to arrive at a corner tree.
Counsel for the plaintiff.
The parties in that case afterwards brought a new ejectment which being tried befóte Judge 3Ionre> at Halifax, on the same circuit in which he is said to have given an opinion favorable to the present defendant, and on such second trial he directed the jury to depart from the course and go to the 'corner called for in the grant.
Johnston, judge.
The grant to Bryant was made by the king. The ce c-. who made out the plat, was his officer 5 and the grant is to be construed most strongly against him, and in favor cf tire patentee 5 and as it is most for the advantage of the paten-tee that the line shall extend to the line of Lane’s patent, the grant ought to yeccive such construction;,
Verdict accordingly.