Lots Nos. 115 and 116, are two adjoining half acre lots in the town of Haywood. Bryan is the owner of lot No. 116, Scott is the owner of lot No. 115. There is a store house upon one of these lots.; and the question is, on. *653which lot does the store house stand ; is it on lot No. 116, or lot No. 115 ?- or in other words, is the lot on which the store house stands, lot No. 116 or lot No. 115 ?
The deed to the plaintiff conveys “lot No. 116 in the town of Haywood.” No further description is given. If at the time the town was laid off and the lots numbered, a post or some other monument, with the number marked on it, had been .erected, or if an accurate map of the town, with the lots numbered in regular order, had been made by public authority and .duly authenticated and preserved, there would have been no ■difficulty “ in fitting the description, (short as it is) to the ■thing.” But neither of these modes of identification, seems to have been adopted, and the plaintiff is forced to resort to other 'evidence for the purpose of locating his lot. A plan of the town, (it does not appear by whom it was drawn) produced by Mr. 'Clegg, an old surveyor, was offered in evidence. The lot marked 116 on this plan, is the lot on which the store house stands, and the question depends upon the accuracy of the numbering.
Mr. Clegg says, and it is apparent from an inspection of the plan, that the order pursued in numbering the lots, is from left ■to right, the former being the lowest number, and the latter •the highest; that this was observed throughout the entire plan, in all oí the lots, except in respect to lots numbered 115 and 116 ; in which case the left hand lot instead of being the lowest is the highest number ; while it the order of numbering had been preserved, the left hand lot would have been 115. The store house stands on the left hand lot; how or why this deviation from the order of numbering was made by the draughtsman is not explained, and the matter is left open to other proof, as to whether this reversal of the order has been recognized and adopted, so as to make the left hand lot to be lot No. 116, or whether the left hand lot has not been known and treated as being lot No. 115, notwithstanding it is marked on the plan produced by Mr. Clegg, “Lot No. 116.” To this end, the defendant offered a deed executed in 1844 by Eichardson to *654Robert Eaucett tor those two “ half acre lots, in the town of Haywood, one which is improved, known as the store house lot, and numbered one hundred and fifteen, (115) and the other known as lot number one hundred and sixteen (116.)”
The evidence was objected to, but admitted. We concur with his Honor. The evidence was so material to the inquiry before the j ury, that it would be strange, if there were any rule of law to exelude it. If the parties to the deed were strangers* we would bo inclined to consider the evidence admissible, on the principle by which hearsay evidence is received in questions' of boundary. Put, here, both parties claim under Eaucett. That fact relieves the question from all difficulty.
We also concur with his Honor, that what the Sheriff said at the time he put up the lots for sale, was admissible as part of the res gestee, and we can see no ground whatever, upon which the plaintiff could object to the admissibility of what he; said himself in reference to the lots.
The objections made to the evidence, offered by the defendants, seems all to be referable to a misapprehension on the part of the plaintiffs’ counsel, in regard to the ground on which it was admitted. He seemed to think that it was offered to contradict and vary the meaning of his deed, whereas no one denies that his deed conveys lot No. 116 ; and the difficulty grows out ot a latent ambiguity, in regard to which is lot No. 116* and, which is lot No. 115. A question of identity, which is clearly assimilated to a question of boundaiy; in respect to which, every one concedes such evidence is admissible; in fact, it is the only kind of proof by which such questions can ever be settled, and the truth arrived at.
There is no error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.