
    HENSON v. BRIDGEMAN.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 69-70.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1850.
    1. EVIDENCE. Vendor without warranty competent.
    The vendor of land in dispute without general warranty is competent as a witness. [Parties to suits and all persons in interest are now competent' witnesses, with certain exceptions. See note and end of syllabus in case of Cali v. Haun, ante, 44.]
    2. SAME. Competency not to be decided by clerk and master.
    The clerk and master’s decision on the question of competency is a nullity, and it is not necessary to reverse his such decision.
    3. MISTAKE. No relief for, in conveying land, when.
    Where, on a sale of land, the true boundary of the land was shown, but in drawing the deed more was included by mistake, the vendor will not be entitled to any compensation in equity. [On question of variation of number of acres when boundaries are given. Notes 66-80 under sec. 3142 of the Code. It is not clear upon what g-round the co-urt put the decision on this point; but it was likely put upon the . ground that the remedy of the vendor was by a bill fileu to have the mistake corrected and the deed reformed in stead of seeking- compensation for the land included in the deed by mistake. The conveyee did not purchase this, and had not agreed to pay any fixed price for it, and it was proper not to compel him to take the land and pay for it. See note 101 under said section. If the sale was not by the acre, but by the shown boundaries, and it turned out that there were more acres than the estimated number mentioned in the deed, the vendor was entitled to no relief whatever. See said notes 66-80.]
   McKinney, J..:

In. the chancery court a deposition was objected to and exceptions filed before the clerk and master om account of the deponent’s interest. The clerk and master sustained the exception, and the adverse party appealed from his decision to the chancellor.

The record does not show any disposition of the question by the chancellor; but the clerk certifies the depositions as having been read on the trial.

The objection as to interest was that the deponent had been a vendor of the land in dispute; but the record does not show that he was a vendor with general warranty. This is not a good objection to- the competency of the witness.

The clerk and master is not the proper tribunal to decide questions of competency, and it is not necessary to revise or reverse his orders o-n that subject. They are a nullity.

Where on a sale of land the true boundary of the land was shown, but in drawing the deed more was included by mistake, the vendor will not be entitled to- any compensation in equity.  