
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1796.
    Thomas Plater’s Lessee against Samuel Hepburn.
    THIS was an ejectment for part of Bradford's Reit, lying in Montgomery county. Defence was taken on warrant, and plats were returned.
    At the trial of the cause the plaintiff’s counsel offered evidence that the tract of land called Bradfoid's Rest-was granted to John Bradford, on the 10th of December, 1713, for 2,658 acres, and on the 10th of June, 1718, Bradford resurveyed the said land, and included 4,992 acres more. The patentee in his lifetime conveyed 2,230 acres to one Deverson, in August, 1722, and on the 11th of February, 1729, the son and heir of the patentee conveyed 4,795 acres of Bradford's Rest to Samuel JByde, of London.
    
    
      That George Plafer, the grandfather of the lessor of the plaintiff, laid an attachment on 1,079 acres of Hyde's part of Bradford's Rest, for a debt of 19,324/. 2s. 7d. and obtained judgment of condemnation in 1746, and in the same year a l-berate issued to deliver the lands into the possession of Geo ge Plater.
    
    That the executors of Rebecca Calvert laid an attach® snent on, and obtained judgment of condemnation, in 1746, of 3,216 acres of Bradford's Rest, for a debt of 1,596/. due from the said Hyde, and were put in posses® sion by a liberate in the same year. That in the year 1747, an act of assembly passed to enable Onorio Rozalini to convey in right of Elizabeth Calvert, an infant, heir of Rebecca Calvert, to George Plater, her part of Bradford's Rest, axid in June, 1748, the conveyance was made for 3,216 acres. That in 1751, George Plater made his will, which was proved in 1755, by which he devisedall his lands to his son George. That in the year 1790, George, the devisee, made his will, and devised his part of Bradford's Rest to his son Thomas, who is the lessor of the plaintiff; and the said George died in the year 1792.
    The defendant took defence for the tract of land called Hermitage, and offered evidence that the said tract was granted to William Joseph, on the 9th of June, 1689, for 3,866 acres. That in September, 1705, William Joseph, jun. son and heir to the patentee, conveyed, by power of attorney, the whole tract to James Butler. That on the 5th of October, 1745, Thomas But’er, son and heir at law of James Butler, conveyed a part of Hermitage to James Edmonson, and on the third of November, 1749, the said Thomas conveyed to Osborn Sprigg all ihat part of Hermit 1ge between Walnut Branch and Rock Creek. That on the 2d of December, 1752, Rachel Sprigg sold and conveyed, under a decree in chancery, all the last mentioned part of Hermitage, containing 400 acres, to John Hepburn, the father of the defendant. Ihat on the 11th of December, 1752, James Edmonson conveyed all his right to the same part to John Hepburn. That on the 28th of March, 1753, William Joseph, heir of the patentee, released all his right to that part of Hermitage to John Hepburn, and on the 6th of March, 1775, John Hepbu< n, by his will, devised all his land called Hermitage, lying as aforesaid, to his son Samuel Hepburn, the defendant.
    
      Key, for the plaintiff.
    
      Mason and Cooke, for the defendant.
    Cooke, for the defendant.
    An ejectment must be supported upon title or possession. The condemnation in 1746, and the liberate after it, without possession, can give no title. Blackstone mentions all the different modes of conveyance, but does not mention this as one.
    The act of 1715, c. 40. does not mention lands; but by an equitable construction of the statute of 5 Geo. II. c. 7. lands were made subject to the payment of debts, and were considered as liable to be operated upon under the attachment law of 1715.
    Lands delivered under an extent, without possession, will not convey such a right as to support an ejectment. In the act of 1747, c. 20. authorizing the deed to Plater, there is a saving of the rights of all other persons.
    
      Mason,
    
    on the same side, contended, that as by the will of George Plater a part of the tract of land called Bradford's Rest was devised to Thomas Plater, the will was, therefore, void for uncertainty.
   The Court.

(Goldsborough, Ch. J. Chase, J. and Duvall, J.)

The land being attached, and on that attachment a condemnation, after which a liberate issued, by virtue of which the land was delivered to George Plater, and he was put in possession, the legal title was thereby vested in him to so much of Bradford's Rest. Whether the land for which this ejectment is brought, is a part of the lands so condemned, is a fact for the jury to decide.

As to the will of George Plater, he possessed only a part of Bradford's Rest, and the will is good to devise his estate in that part.  