
    Farley and another against Lenox.
    Ammoffipurporting to he a draft of a survey, signed bj the person puty 'surveyor at the time it to have been1 luh'isoffichl”4 eharacter, is though both ’ par/ofthe'"'1 land of which bePa survey'0 than’twentyre one years, possUsionof dueing'it P'°"
    A paper, he aP°ordert0 from tito Sur-^ to the deputy foundin'the' offioeofthe latter, and -which is neitheranongia certified eocíai°paper," proof hand writing vevor-Genéral by whom it appears to have been signed, is not evidence.
    Where, a man enters on a tract of appropriated land, without title, or colour of Utley the Act of Limitations will not protect him beyond his actual enclosures.
    In Error.
    THIS case came before the Court, on the return of a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Union county, ¡n jt was an eiectment brought by David Lenox *» ° J against John and Caleb Farley9 to recovera tract of land in White Deer township,
    The title of the plaintiff was founded on an application, dated the 3d of April, 1769, in the name of William M'Cor-He, on which a survey was made by Charles L'tkens on the 23d of October, 1769. William M'-Corkle, bv deed dated the °f June, 1769, conveyed to Daniel M’-Fall, and by sundry mesne conveyances, the title was regularly brought down to Charles Lukens, who conveyed it to John Lukens, whose surviv"lng executors, David Lenox and Abraham Lukens, on the 8th of December, 1796, obtained a patent for the land, for the use of the heirs of John Lukens. To September Term, 1797, an ejectment was brought by the executors of John Lukens against Caleb Farley; and on the 11th of October, If98, a trial took place, when a verdict was returned in faVour of the plaintiffs. A judgment was entered on the verdiet, on which an habere facias was issued, returnable to December Term, If 98, but was never executed. David Lenox survived Abraham Lukens.
    
    The defendants contended, that the deed of the 30th of June, 1769, from M'-Corkle to M'-Fall, was a forgery; but the evidence in relation to this part of the case was extremeshght. The defence rested chiefly upon the Act of Limitations, in support of which it was proved, that in the year If86, Jacob Ant was in possession of part of the tract, and had from six to nine acres cleared and under fence. He said he was in possession under M’-Corkle, the original owner ; but there were several persons of that name, and to which of them he referred, did not distinctly appear. In the winter of the year 1787, he sold the cleared land for six shillings an acre, to Caleb Farley, who moved on the premises in the following Marchj and continued in possession ever since, and from time to time, made some additions to the cleared land. The defendants offered in evidence, two papers which Caleb Farley had received from M'-Corkle, (from which of the M-Corkles did not appear) about the year 1787, and had ever since remained in his possession. One of them purported to be a draft of a survey on William M'-Corklé’s application, .signed by Charles Lukens. On the face of the draft the following words were written, '■'■James M'-Corkle claiming under William M'-Corkleand on the hack of it Was written, “No. 1539, Berks. James M'-Corkle, in right of William M'-Corkle, 319 acres. Ret.d into the Surv. Gen-l’s office.” This draft was signed “ Charles Lukens,” without any thing to indicate that he was the deputy purveyor; nor was it directed to the Surveyor-General. The other paper purported to be an order from John Lukens, the Surveyor-General, directed to Charles Lukens, deputy surveyor, to make a survey on William M'CorkMs application. It was signed ‘■‘■John Lukens,” but the hand-writing of John Lukens was not proved, nor was the paper found in the office of the deputy surveyor, Charles Lukens.' The counsel for the plaintiff objected to the admission of these papers in evidence, and the Court rejected them ; upon which an*exception to their opinion was taken. The counsel for the defendants were requested by the counsel for the_plaintiff, to state the object for which these papers were offered. This they declined .doing; but on being required by the Court, they said that they offered them for the purpose of shewing title in the defendants and out of the plaintiff. Exceptions were also taken to the opinion of the Court, in rejecting several depositions offered by the counsel for the defendants; but as these exceptions were afterwards relinquished, it is unnecessary to notice them more particularly. The defendants also gave in evidence a deed from Robert M'-Corkle (who, they alleged, was the brother and heir of William,) to James M'Corkle, dated the 10th of January, 1773; and another deed from the same Robert M'Corkle to Caleb Farley, dated the 30th of August, 1807.
    
      The following passages in the charge of the Court were excepted to by the counsel for the defendants:
    “ If the jury should believe that Ant lived on the land as an improver, although he claimed to M'-Corkle's boundaries and Farley came in under him, Farley could only be protected by the Statute of Limitations, as far as he actually occupied. By the late decision of the Supreme Court, he would not be protected by his constructive possession of the remainder. He would only hold to M'-Corkle's boundaries, from 1807, the date of M’-Corkle's deed to him, under which his pretext of title first commenced.”
    Again: “ From the time of the commencement of Farley's title under M'-Corkle, which was not until his deed of 1807, there would not be twenty-one years previous to the commencemeat of this ejectment; only about six years.”
    Further : « If Farley purchased Ant's possession, as a tenant, it would not be such a semblance of title, as would protect him beyond his actual occupancy, unless there was a connection between him and M'-Corkle."
    
    
      Bellas and Bradford, for the plaintiffs in error.
    Part of our defence was, that the deed from William M'-Corkle to Daniel M'-Fall was forged; and the papers mentioned in the bill of exceptions were offered to show that the title had passed from William M'-Corkle to his brother James, under whom we claimed. The long possession, ever since 1787, of original papers relating to the land in dispute, accompanied with possession of the land itself, was strong evidence of a right to the original application derived through James, by descent from Willia?n, and in this point of view these papers ought to have been admitted. Besides, they were evidence that the defendants held under colour of title, and were therefore protected by the Act of Limitations, in their possession of the whole tract. The survey was evidence also, because it showed that Charles Lukens, through whom the plaintiff deduced his title, had notice that the land was claimed by James M'Corkle. The cases of Evans v. Nargony, 2 Binn. 55; Boyles v. Johnston's Executors, 6 Binn. 125; 
      and Vincent v. Lessee of Huff, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 298, are con-elusive to shew, that the words written on the face and back of the draft, tending to shew the interest of James M'Corkle , . m the land, are evidence.
    There was parol evidence, that Caleb Farley claimed under Fluoride's title, as far back as 1787. Thus he was in under colour of title, which extended his possession to the whole tract, and gave him the benefit of the Act of Limitations as to the whole, unaffected by his purchase of another title from Jacob Ant, who was an improver. The Court was therefore wrong in instructing the jury, that Farley's title under M'-Corkle did not commence until the deed of the 30th of August, 1807. The Court charged, that if Farley purchased from Ant, as tenant of M'Corkle, yet his possession would not extend as far as M'Corkle's lines. This was certainly wrong, for if Farley bought of Ant who was in possession under M'Corkle, according to M'Corkle's boundaries, Farley's possession was co-extenaive with that of Ant.
    
    
      Greenough, for the defendant in error.
    When the papers in question were offered in evidence, no proof had been given, that Farley had purchased of M*Corkle, and therefore no colour of title derived from him, appeared at that time; nor was any claim under him'shewn, until the deed of the 30th of August, 1807. The cases cited in support of the opposite argument only prove, that endorsements made by a deputy surveyor on official surveys, are evidence of ownership; but as the draft offered in evidence was not an official paper, and was found in no public office, they are obviously inapplicable. The order, purporting to be signed by John Lukens, was neither an original paper, nor a certified copy of one, nor was there even proof of the genuineness of the signature. To argue that such a paper was not evidence, would be waste of time. The defendants’ counsel were called upon at the trial to specify for what purpose these papers were offered; but they made no mention of the Act of Limitations, and merely said that the object of them was to shew title out of the plaintiff and in the defendants. They were therefore properly rejected.
    In 1787, Caleb Farley purchased of Jacob Ant, an improver, between whom and M'-Corkle there was no privity, the land which Ant then had in cultivation. By the recitals in the deed of 30th August, 1807, it appears, that until that period the title remained in the M'-Corkle family. Under * " these circumstances, the Court charged, that when Farley purchased from Ant, his possession extended no further than Ant's enclosures, and in this they were clearly right. They were no less clearly right in that part of the charge which forms the subject of the last exception. 1 heir meaning obviously was, that if Farley purchased from Ant, without the privity of M'-Corkle, he could not extend his actual possession by resorting to the lines of M'-Corkle's survey.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

David Lenox, the plaintiff below, claimed under an application, in the name of William M'Corkle, dated 3d April, 1769, on which a survey was made the 23d October, 1769. The plaintiff having given in evidence the application and survey, produced a deed from William M'-Corkle to Daniel M'Fall, dated 30th June, 1769, and sundry conveyances by which the title was brought down to John Lukens deceased, and then shewed a patent to himself and Abraham Lukens, deceased, surviving executors of the said John Lukens. Thus the title was complete in the plaintiff. The defendants having proved that Caleb Farley was in possession of part of the land in dispute in the year 1787, offered in evidence two papers, which were delivered to him by M'-Corkle about the year 1787, and had remained in his possession ever since. One of these papers purported to be the draft of a survey on William M'-Corklé's application, signed by Charles Lukens. On the face of the draft, was written, James M'-Corkle, claiming under. William M'-Corkle and on the back was the following endorsement, u No. 1539, Berks. James M’-Corkle, in right of William M'-Corkle, 319 acres. Ret.d into the Surv. Gen.l’s office.’’ The draft was not signed by Charles Lukens, as deputy surveyor, that is to say, the letters D. S. were not put after his name; the signature was simply “ Charles Lukens.” Nor was it directed to the Surveyor-General. The Court rejected this paper, and I think, with great propriety. It was a private paper, not found in the office oí the deputy surveyor or Surveyor-General, or any other public office. It bore strong marks of suspicion on its face ; for it differed from the official draft of the survey on M'-Corkle's application, which had been given in evidence by the plaintiff. The words, “ James M'Coikle claiming under William M'-Corkle,,” might have been put on for the purpose of defeating the title of the plaintiff, who claimed under a deed from William M'-Corkle. Besides, the endorsement declared, that it had been returned into the Surveyor-General’s office. If so, why was not a certified copy of the return produced, which would have been good evidence. There will be no safety in titles, if inofficial papers of this kind are suffered to go in evidence. I am of opinion, therefore, that the Court was right in rejecting it. The other paper purported to be an order from John Lukens, Surveyor-General, directed to his son, Charles Lukens, deputy surveyor, to make a survey on M'Corkle’s application. It was signed “ John Lukens,” but not being certified as a copy of an official paper, it could not be evidence unless it was an original order. But there was no proof of its being an original order. It was not found in the office of the deputy surveyor, Charles Lukens, nor was the hand writing of the Surveyor-General, John Lukens, proved. Clearly, therefore, it was not evidence. There was another bill of exceptions on the record, to the opinion of the Court in rejecting the depositions of Sarah M'-Corkle and Jennet Knox. But this exception has been relinquished.

The remaining exception was to the charge of the Court. The defendants relied mainly on their possession and the Statute of Limitations. They did indeed allege, that the deed from William M’-Corkle to Daniel M'-Fall, under which the plaintiff claimed, was forged, but of that there was no proof. And they gave in evidence a deed from Robert M'-Corkle (brother of William, and said by the defendants to be his heir) to James M'Corkle, dated the 10th of January, 1773, and another deed from the same Robert M'-Corkle to Caleb Farley, dated the 30th of August, 1807. The defendants gave evidence also, that one Jacob Ant, who was in possession of part of this land, (and as the defendants alleged, under one of the M'Corkles) sold his right to Caleb Farley in the year 1787. The defendants had been in possession of a few acres of the tract in dispute above twenty-one years, which they had cleared and enclosed with a fence, and for that part, the Judge instructed the jury, the defendant’s title would be good by the Statute of Limitations. But the defendants contended that they were in possession, by construction of law, of the whole tract, because they had purchased of Ant and of Robert MiCorkle. On that point, the Judge charged, that when the defendants obtained a deed from Robert M'-Corkle, on the 30th of August, 1807, as this deed was for the whole tract according to the return, of survey on William M'-Corkle9 s application, the defendants being in the actual possession of part, and claiming the whole under this deed, were, in construction of 'law, from, the date of that deed, in possession of the whole, so as ’to give operation, on' the whole, to the Statute of Limitations. But this would not serve the defendants’ purpose; because there were not twenty-one years from the 30th of August, 1807, (the date of the deed) to the commencement of this ejectment. The defendants then had recourse to their title under Ant, as to which the Court instructed the jury, that if Ant had possession of a few acres, without title, his conveyance to Caleb Farley would not extend the possession of Farley, by construction of law, beyond the bounds of the inclosed land; but that' it would. be otherwise if Ant was in possession of, or had any colour of title to, the whole land, under the M'-Corkles. There may be a little obscurity in some of the Judge’s expressions, but fairly construed, his meaning is as I have stated it. And I can perceive no error in it; for this .Court has repeatedly decided, that where a man enters on a tract of appropriated land, without title or colour of title, the Statute of Limitations will not protect him beyond his accual inclosures. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the plaintiffs in error have not supported either of their exceptions, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  