Opinion
October Term, 1793
In the case of boundaries expressed in deeds and patents, the courses and distances mentioned in such deeds or patents must be observed, except when a natural boundary is called for and shown, or when marked lines and corners can be proved to have been made at the original survey.
EJECTMENT. The boundaries expressed in the deed to Bustin, under whom Hill claimed, were: Beginning on Fishing Creek, thence east 320 poles to Pollock's corner, thence north same number of poles to Bryant's, thence along Bryant's line west 320 poles to the creek: Bryant's corner being 4 degrees to the east of north from Pollock's corner, the line from Pollock's corner intersected Bryant's line considerably to the west of Bryant's corner. It was proven there was an old marked line leading from Pollock's to Bryant's corner, but that in running by the compass from Pollock's corner north 54 degrees east, which was the general course of that line, the marked line would be sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other side of that run by the compass; wence it was taken by the jury to have been run by some person after the survey; the triangle formed by the said north line, part of Bryant's line, and a line from Pollock's corner to Bryant's corner, included the land in dispute.
It was insisted for the plaintiff that the expression of the word north was a mistake in the surveyor, as the line would give but about half the complement of acres; that it would not measure the distance called for by the deed, as it would intersect Bryant's line before the distance was gained, and because from the point of its intersection with Bryant's line, along Bryant's line to the creek, would be only 130 poles; whereas the deed called for the whole length of Bryant's line, to wit, 320 poles. Add to this, that the true grammatical construction of the words used in the patent, "to Pollock's corner, thence to Bryant's," will determine the sense to Bryant's corner, not to Bryant's line, there being no line antecedently mentioned.