The only question presented by the record is whether the ruling of His Honor in excluding the proof offered by the defendant upon the point of possession was erroneous. In an action to recover land the plaintiff must always prove the defendant in actual' possession of some .part of the land described in the complaint, unless the possession is admitted. The defendant here has admitted that he was in possession of the land, and the admission extended to every part of it. And having admitted in his pleading the possession of the whole tract sued for, it could not be allowed him in contradiction thereof, to prove that in fact he was not in possession of .a certain part. The proofs must •correspond with the allegations, not contradict them.
For the defendant to have availed himself of the defence which he has sought to set up in this case, he ought, in his answer, to have disclaimed title to all the land, described in •the'complaint, lying on the south side of the fed line, and *563ffenied that he had possession of any pait thereof; and admitting the possession on ‘the north side of the line, insisted that he had title thereto and that his possession was not 'wrongful.
The plaintiff might -in that case have taken out his execration for the part disclaimed, but it would have raised a direct issue of title as to the land on the north side of the line, and the plaintiff would only have been entitled to recover if he could have shown a good title. Albertson v. Redding, 2 Mur., 283; 1 Car. L. R., 274 (28); Squires v. Riggs, 2 Hay., 150 (826).
The defendant having admitted in his answer the 'posses* áion of the whole of the land cohered by the plaintiff’s grant, his disclaimer on the trial of that part lying on the south-side of the line was an admission of a wrongful possession and the plaintiff was-entitled to a verdict. There is no error. • The judgment of 'the court below is affimed.
No error. -Affirmed*