
    James Martin, vs. Hugh Simpson.
    
      In closing the line of a tract of land, which calls for an open corner, the line of another tract, which is called for as a boundary, should be pursued as far as it extends, though deviating from the course; when that fails the course should be pursued: ■ course and distance should govern,unless controuled by natural objects or artificial boundaries.
    
    This was an action of trespass, to try the title of a tract ' of land in Chester district. The, defendant, Simpson, having produced a regular chain of title, derived from an older grant than that of the plaintiff, Martin, was entitled to a verdict; but in what manner his survey ought to have been closed,, was the question. It appears by the platt (attached to the grant under which defendant claims,) that his south eastern corner was open; which corner is designated in the following diagram, by „the letter E. The line on the eastern side of the tract is represented in the platt as running S. 35, W. but the tract calls for ■ M} Colon's land on that side, the boundary line of which runs S. 20, W. asfar as down the line C. D. The dotted line D. F. is a prolongation of C. D. until it intersects with the line A. E. G. F. The line D. G. runs in the course called for in the grant, viz: — S. 35, W. from the point D. where M‘Cown’s line stops.
    
      The jury, as they wei'e instructed by the circuit court, .closed the survey at F. and from this decision, an, appeal is now submitted to this court.
   The opinion the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Huger.

It is important to the quiet enjoyment of landed property, that the rules by which it is to be located should be simple and ■few. If a case therefore can be as well decided by an already well known and established rule, it is better to be satisfied with it, than to nake a new one, or resort to another not sd well known. It has already been well settled that courses and dis tances must govern, unless conlrouled by artificial boundaries or natural objects. Having Arrived therefore at the comer C. the surveyor should have proceeded on the dotted line C. E. (the course called for in the grant,) had he not been prevented by the call for M£Cown’s line, which runs in the direction or course of C. D. F. As soon however as he arrived at D. the termination of M'Cown’s line,- the reason for leaving the course called for by the grant, ceased, and he should then have returned to the course. Every link he ran on D. F. was unauthorised by the grant — fit was neither the course or M‘Cown’s line. From the termination of M‘Cown’sline at D. he ought to have proceeded in the direction of D. G. (the couyse-csilled for by the grant) which fixes the corner at G. The motion in- this case must therefore be granted.

Clarke, for motion.

Eaves, contra.

Colcbck, and Johnson, Justices, concurred.  