
    Hall vs. Gittings's Lessee.
    If the possession of land has gone agree ibly to an. ancient deed, which needed no enrolment, tin* inspeximus <>f tin* 4ced may be read, in t videnc*, and ss effectual to pass the land
    : : I 1 Whore a deed for part of a tract of land has not been particularly jocated on the plots in the cause, it may he read In evidence if the whole trier is united in the same person, and the Whole has been loca ted
    • > - J A feme covert, one <»f the grantors in a deed conveying a tract of land. ih'* neknow lodgment of which by’ her having been declared defective. was admitted to give evidence on the part of the defendant m an action of eieetment brought for il\e same 1-nd by a person claiming pnder her ■deed. (Kota)
    
    * If a grantor of land, residing in a particular county, and having a temporary residence in another county, in neither of which counties does the land lie, acknowledges the deed in the conn* tv in which his temporary re-idonco is, such deed is not good and valid in Jaw to pass and trau$fer «it ffrajuorN inteiest in tin- ,, ...
    ... A temporary residence m any county of th'“ state is not sutucunt to enable a grantor, being a citizen of the state, to acknowledge a deed, duving such temporary residence, for land ijing in any other county of the. state. *
    The words ^legally authorised and assigned, m a certificate ot the clerk ot a county court to a deed acknowledge d b< fore two justices of the peace of that cpnnty, i§ a substantial compliance with the direptions, and within ihe meaning oí tiie act of 1166, ch, 14, and arc words of the samft import as ''‘duly commissioned and sworn ”
    Where the defendant in an action of ejectment, was in possession of 100 acres of land, by enclosures and cultivation, for 15 years, and then enhirgid his enclosure’» so as to include 150 acres, and lie possessed the same, so enlarged, hy enclosurts for six 3ears thereafter, claiming the same as lii$ own— fields that he had title to the 100 acres hy advorsmy possession.
    Where the expressions ust d in a grant of land describe it as “lying on the ridge of Gunpowder river, beginning at a hounded j»ak, being* the uttermost hounds of a tract of land laid out for M S9 and running west 500 ps. xo 'a bound* d 02k standing by the Great Fails, r.rd running N from the said pak,” &c. — Held, that ihej do not operate to bind the first line to terminate at the Great Pulls, although no evidence he given ofthe tiee ov place win re It stood
    ■^Tho declarations by a deceased person, then s« ized of a ps.vticu'nr tract of land not located on fli§ plots in the cause, were offered in evidence by the defendant m an aciion of ejectment, to prove the end ofthe first hpe of that tract, which wa- the beginning of the kind claimed and, located on the plots by the defendant. — Held, that the declarations were not admissible in evidence.
    In an action of ejectment for 50 acres of arable land, 10 acres ot meadow, and 100 acres of woodland, part of a tract of land called 11 F, thejuiy, bj tluir verdict, found the true location of that tract, and also the locations of other tracts of land fbv which the deft ndant took defence. They also found for the p'aintiff all the land called IIF, as located by them, which lies char of the tnln n tracts, sp located by them, and which lies to the eastward of a dnision line between the plaintiff’^ lessor and <1S, from a particular point to another. — lit id, thut the verd:ct? and ilie judgment thereon fend&ed, were not uncertain, and were not for more laud tban_the plaintiff claimed in his ^ptiua, *
    Error to the General Court. In this case there was a procedendo from the late court of appeals, directing a new trial of an action of ejectment, (which had been tried in the general court at May term 1800,) for 50 acres of arable land, 10 acres of meadow, and 100 acres of woodland, being part of a tract of land called Hitts Forest, situate in Baltimore county. (See 1 Harr. 0? Johns. 14.) The defendant took defence for Cullen’s I¿oi, and Cullen’s Addition, on the plots made ’and returned. Judgment was entered against the casual ejector for all the lands undefended. ^ 1 r | L 1 1 , l 1 i
    
    1, The plaiptiif at the new trial at May term 1805, producedin evidence a certificate of survey of a tract of ¡and called Hi,ll’s Forest, made for Bichard Hill on the 4th ofOctober 1683--4, in pursuance of a warrant granted him for 1000 acres, on the 31st of July 1683, “lying in Baltimore connfty,'in the woods above the head of a river called Gunpowder- river, and upon the S side of the N branch ofthe said river, beginning at a bounded red oak standing at the end the N line of a parcel of land formerly taken up for *James Thompson 
      
      , and running from thence W parallel with the said land for the length of 520 perches, then run» ning from the end of the W line N 81 Aperches, then runfifing from the end of the N line, E 520 perches, until it intersects the land called Clarhson’s Hope, then running with the said tend, and a parcel of land called Gassmvay’s Ridge, by a straight line to the ñrst bounded tree, containing and laid out, for 10C0 acres of land more or less.” Also a pal cut granted to Richard Hill, on the 10th of August 1684, for that land. Also the will of Richard Hill, dated the 20th of October 1700, whereby he devised to his sons Richard, Joseph and Henry, by a residuary devise in the will, the said land, equally to be divided, to them and their heirs, for ever. Also the will of Joseph Hill, dated the 21st of May 1724, whereby he devised the remainder of his estate, both real and personal, including the said tract of land, to his brother Henry Hill, (son of the patentee,) and his heirs, for ever. Also the entries on the Rent Roll, showing that Hill’s Forest, 1000 acres, was in possession of Joseph IHU, and stating therein an alienation of the land from Henry Kill to Joseph Hill, on the 27th of July 1787. Also a copy of a deed from Henry Hill, son of the patentee, to Joseph Hill, dated the 27th of July 1737, and the record book, with the deed therein recorded, in the following words: (See it set forth in 1 Harr. 8/ Johns. 16.) Also the will of Joseph Hill, dated the 20th of October 17(31, whereby' he devised to his granddaughter, Henry filargeccet Hill, all the remainder of his tract of land called Hill’s Forest, not devised to Nathaniel and Joseph Richardson. lie devised to Joseph Richardson 200 acres, to be laid off at the canlermost end of Hill’s Forest, and to Nathaniel Richardson 200 acres, to be laid off at the westermost end of Hill’s Forest, and the residue, 600 acres in the middle, he devised to his granddaughter Henry Margaret IHU, (now Ogle.,) in fee. Also a deed from Joseph Richardson to Charles Wells, dated the 27th of March 1779, for 200 sepes of land, part of the land called Hill's Forest. Also a deed from Charles Wells to George, Buchanan, dated the 9fh of October 1784, for (he 200 acres of land, part of HilPs Forest. Also a deed from George, Buchanan to James Gittings, the lessor of the plain!iff, dated the 28ih of December lf89, for tin*, last mentioned 200 acres of land. Also a deed from Benjamin Ogle, and Henry Margaret his wife, to James Bosley, dated the 25th of June 1777, for part of the tract called Hill’s Forest, supposed to contain 430 acres. Also a deed from James Bosley to George Buchanan, dated the iOth of Juue for the last mentioned part of HUP a Forest. Also a deed from George Buchanan to James Gitlings, the lessor of t|ie plaintiff, dated the 28th of December 1789, for tha last mentioned part of hill’s Forest, Also the proprietary debt books from to 1762, showing that Joseph Hill %vas charged with 1000 acres of Hill’s Forest; also the debt books from 1762 to 1771, shewing that Joseph Hill’s heirs were charged with the said land; and also the debt books in 1771, showing that Joseph Richardson was charg-' ed with 200 acres, Nathaniel Richardson with 200 acres, and Henry M. Hill with 600 acres of Hill’s Forest. The defendant objected to the reading of the deed before mentioned, from Henry Hill to Joseph Hill, dated the 27th of July 1737.
    
      Martin, (Attorney-General.) for the Plaintiff,
    cited Bull. N. P. 254. Style, 205, 445. 2 Bac. Ab. 308. Kendall’s case, 3 Lev. 387, 888. Mcdlicott vs. Joyner, 1 Mod. 4, Martin vs Monke, 5 Mod. 211. Sir Edward Seymour’s case, 10 Mod. 8. Combs vs. Dowell, 2 Vern. 591. Stanyon vs. Davis, 6 Mod. 225. Taylor vs. Jones, 1 Ld. Raym. 746. Woodward vs. Aston, 1 Vent. 296, 297. Saltern vs. Melhuish, Ambl. 247, 248 Gilb. L. E. 97, 98, 101. Lofft’s Gilb. 102. 2 Bac, Ab, tit. Evidence, (F) 646. 3 Com. Dig. tit. Evidence, (B. 2;) and Smartle vs. Williams, 1 Salk. 280, 281.
    Chasis, Ch. J. The court were of opinion, in the former trial between these parties, that a copy of a deed which needs rip. enrolment is not evidence. But the present question is, whether the inspexixnus of the enrolment of a deed, which requires no enrolment, is good evidence, it being accompanied with other circumstances, such as antiquity,, and possession going with it.
    The court are of opinion, that if possession is found to have gonp agreeably to the degd, it being an ancient deed, ¡the inspexwms of the deed, though it does not require recording, may be read in evidence, and the deed is good and effectual to pass the land. But if the jury dq net find that possession has gone with the deed, then the inspeximus is not evidence, and the jury are to disregard the deed.
    The court consider the distinction is. well established.
    2. The defendant objected to the reading in evidence the deed, herein before mentioned, from Joseph Richardson to Charles Hells, dated the 27th of March 1779, for 200 acres of land, part of Hill’s Forest, as that deed was not located on the plots returned in the cause*.
    
      Martin., (Attorney-General,) for the Plaintiff)
    referred to Hall’s Lessee vs. Gough, 1 Harr. & Johns. 119.
    Chase, Cli. ,7. If the title to the ¿00 acres, and the 600 acres, are united in the same person, by laying down the whole, the 200 acres are, sufficiently located. The court are of opinion, that the deed may be read in evidence to the jury* although it has not been particularly located oa the plots.
    
      Ci. The, first bill of exceptions. The. deed from Benjamhi Ogle, and wife, to James Bosley, having been adjudged defective by t.he court of appeals, and the judgment in the former trial between the parties reversed, because of the «pinion of this court as contained in the second bill of ex* ceptions, and the court of appeals having expressed an opinion that the plaintiff might give evidence that Mr. Ogle resided in Prince- George’s county at the time he executed the deed, it that was the case, and the plaintiff having produced, and read to the court and jury, the deed from benjamin Ogle and Henry Margaret his wife, to James Bosley, dated the 25th of June 1777, stated to be-‘‘between Benjamin Ogle, esquire, and Henry Margaret, his wife, of Jnne-Arundel county, in the slate of Maryland, of the one part, and Jumes Bosley, son of Charles, of Baltimore county, in the state aforesaid, of the other part,” and that “fur and in consideration of the sum of fourteen hundred pounds common current money, to them in hand r.lready paid,” Ogle, and wife granted, &c, to Bosky, “all their, and each of their right,” &e. “of, in and unto, a certain tract or parcel of land, being part of a tract of land called Hill’s Forest, lying in Baltimore, county, containing by estimation four hundred and thirty-one acres, v/ith all,” &c. This deed was executed by Ogle, a in! Wife, and acknowledged as follows: ‘‘Be it remembered, that the within named Benjamin Ogle, esquire, and Henry Margaret, his wife, came before us the subscribers, justice^ of the peace for Prince-Gccrge’s county, of the state of Mia-s'.)! and, and acknowledged the within deed to be their act, and the lands and premises, with their appurtenances, thereby bargained and sold, to be the estate of the within Burned James Bosley, son of Charles, his heirs and assigns, for ever: And the said Henry Margaret, wife to the ■ímd Benjamin Ogle, esquire, being by us examined $>rLvately out of the hearing of her husband, declared that she made the above acknowledgment willingly and freely, and without being induced, thereto by force or threats of ill-usage by her husband, or fear of his displeasure.
    Taken and certified* Thos. Williams,
    
      Tlios. Boyd.”
    
    
      At the foot of th^ acknowledgment was the following certificate, given by the clerk of Prince-George’s county-court: “Prince-George’a county, to wit; In testimony that Thomas Williams and Thomas Boyd, gentlemen, before whom the above acknowledgment was made, and who' have thereto affixed their signatures,- Were at the time of taking and affixing the same, and still are* two of the justices of the peace for the county afoiesaid, legally authorised and essigned, and to all certificates by them so signed, due faith and credit is and ought to be given as well-in justice courts, as thereout, I have hereunto set my hand,- and affixed the public seal of office, this 14th day of July, Anno Domini 1777.
    
    (Seal.)
    
      John Bead, Magruder,- Clk.-”’
    The deed, with the several endorsements thereon, was recorded amongst the land records of Baltimore county, on the 20th of September 1777. The plaintiff then offered evidence to the jury, by the testimony of Benjamin Ogle,esquire, one of the grantors named in the deed, who deposed that in 1774 he became seized and possessed of an estate in Prince-George’s county, called Belle Air,- upon-which, estate there then was, and still is, a large and commodious furnished house; that he considered the city of Annapolis, near to which he had a large landed estate, as the place of his residence from the year 1770 down to- this time; that in the county of Anne-Arundel he toted, was-summoned to serve as a juryman, and was permitted to enjoy the right of passing the various ferries in the said county without paying ferriage, none of which privileges or immunities were ever enjoyed by .him in the county of-Prince- George’s. That from the time he became possessed of the estate called Belle Ah', until the year 1790, it was customary for him occasionally, every year,- to go with his family to that es tate, aild live there for a time, sometimes for a longer and sometime for a shorter period of time. That on the 25th of June 1777* he was with his wife at .his seat _ Called Éelle-Air, in Prince-George's county, (their children being at West- River,) and there, together with his wife, executed and acknowledged the deed from himself and wife to James Bosley. That lie was himself in the city of Annapolis in August 1777, when the British fleet passed up the Chesapeake bay, but that his family were then at Belle-Air. The plaintiff, with the consent of the defendant, produced and read in evidence the deposition of John Tliornas 
      
      , in the following words: “That he hath, from an early petiod of his life, been acquainted with Benjamin Ogle, esquire, and with his lady; that Mr. Ogle resided, and still resides, in the city of Annapolis, where he has a large and commodious house and lot, his place of residence, and near to which city he held, and still continues to hold, a large and valuable landed estate; that previous to the year 1777, Mr. Ogle recovered, by a suit in chancery, from his late uncle, Col. Benjamin Tasker, a valuable landed estate in Prince-George's county, and that Mr. Ogle, during the summer season, generally, with his lady, spent a great part of his time at Belle Air, on the land recovered as aforesaid, but that his household furniture and servants still remained at his dwelling-house in Annapolis. He well remembers that Mr. Ogle and family remained at Annapolis the first part of the year 1777, lie thinks until the month of April, or the beginning of May, and that Sir. and Mrs. Ogle were at Belle Air the latter part of the month of that year. In June of the same year, this affirmant was twice at, Mr. Ogle's dwelling-house in Annapolis, where he and his lady then were, with his servants, and that this affirmant, as lie had been accustomed for many years, lodged there. He may have been ofterier with them, but of that he has no distinct recollection. That in August and September Mr. and Mrs. Ogle were at Belle Air; that in the fall of 1777 his kitchen, in Annapolis, was burnt down. However they were in said dwelling-house in the spring of 1778. The winter following they, resided in the now government-house, and remained there until the spring of 1779. That he always did, and doth now, consider Annapolis as the place of residence of Mr. Ogle, and that he never did reside in 
      Printe-George’s county; his retiring there in the summer season-, he conceived as a visit from home, and not as going to constitute a néw residence.” The plaintiff also of,jere(j jri evidence, by the testimony of Mrs. Mary Ridont, sister-to Benjamin Ogle, that her brother, upon his marriage, which took place in September 1770, settled in Annapolis, and has resided there ever since. That when he got possession of his estate called Belle Air, there was upon it a large and commodious furnished dwelling-house; that it was usual for him to go occasionally every year with his family and spend sometime at his sent; that she cannot now recollect when her brother first began to reside occasionally at his said country seat, nor can she recollect - the time or season of the year when he usually went to it, but she remembers that she herself spent the. summer of 1777 at Bath, in Virginia, and upon her return home from. Bath, in the month of September 1777, she called at the " seat of her brother in Prince-George’s county, called Bette Air, and spent some days there; at that time her brother and his family were residing there. Being asked by the counsel for the defendant, whether she considered Bette Air or Annapolis the place of residence of her brother? she answered, both; that in her estimation, when a gentleman had a town house, and country house, and occasionally spent part of his time at each of them, he resided in both . of them. The defendant then produced, and swore to the jury, Henry Margaret Ogle 
      
      , who deposed, that about the middle of May 1777, her grand-mother died; that about this period, or some short time before, she' seiit her children to West River, in Anne-Arundel county, to the house of her uncle Mr. John Thomas, to keep them from taking the small pox, which then prevailed in Annapolis, that the children continued at West River for two or three months; that Mr. Ogle and herself, and at times herself only, went to see them at West River, and in going to West River from Annapolis, and from West River to Annapolis, she and Mr. Ogle occasionally called at Belle-Air, their seat in Prince-George’s county, and staid one or two nights; but she does not remember ever to have staid at Belle Air more than two nights, unless her children were with her. That the deed from Mr. Ogle and herself to Bosley, of the ,35 ih of June, 1777, was executed at Be,lie-Air, on one of those occasional visits when she and Mr, Ogle were passing from Annapolis to West River, or from West River to Annapolis. That it was executed just before they left Belle Air, which she well remembers, because, seeing persons coming to the house, she was afraid she should be detained at Belle JMr; that the persons proved to be the party who bought the land, coming to tender continental money in payment of it, aud to have the deed executed. That she and Mr. Ogle had not their children at Belle Air in the year 1777, until after Mr. Ogle’s return from Berkley county. That Annapolis, in Anne-Arundel county, she always considered their place of residence. That different times of the year, and of different years, they occasionally spent part of their time with their family at Belle Air, and in some years they went to Belle Ah' only for a day or two at a time. That Mr. Ogle has a large landed estate in his cultivation nearly adjoining to Annapolis. The defendant also proved by Beniamin Ogle, that he went in the year 1777 to Berkley county, in Virginia; that he went there after the £5th of June 1777, and returned before the 10th of July 1777* and that in 1777 he did not take up his temporary residence at Belle Air, until after his return from Berkley. That he was at Belle Air in 1777, before the execution of the deed, and at its execution, but does not remember the time he went there, nor how long he staid there. That from Annapolis to Mr. John Thomas’s at West River, is 14 miles, to Belle Air is ¡8 miles, and from Belle Air to West River is 14 miles. The plaintiff then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if they are satisfied from the evidence that Benjamin Ogle had aud kept two dwelling-houses furnished, to wit, a town house and country bouse, from the year 1774 to the year 1780, the town house situate in Annapolis, in the county of Anne-Arundel, the country house situate in the, county of Prince-0 forge’s, and that during the time his resilience was principally in Annapolis, tho’in each of the years aforesaid he occasionally went with his family to his country house in Prince-Gear go’s, and resided therefor a time, sometimes for a longer and sometimes for a' shorter period in each of the years aforesaid, and that he with his wife were, on the 25th of June 1777, at his country house in Prince George’s county, and then and there, with his wife, executed the deed of that date to Bosley, that then the deed, so executed, was and is good and sufficient in law to pass and transfer, from Ogle to Bosley, all the interest which Ogle then liad in and to the lands mentioned in, and intended to be conveyed by, the deed.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General,) and Mason, for the plaintiff,
    stated, that the question was, whether Mr. Ogle liad, on the testimony in the cause, such a living or residence in Ppince-George’s county as to justify his acknowledging in that county' the deed from him and wife to Bosley? Or whether a deed ackno pledged in Prince- George’s county, before two justices of the peace of that county, for lands lying in .Baltimore county, by persons who are stated in the deed to be of Anne-Arimdel county, was a good and sufficient deed in law to pass and transfer the estate to the grantee? To show that Mr. Ogle had a sufficient residence in Prince-George’s county, to enable him to execute the deed in that county, they referred to the acts of 1715, ch 47, s. 8, 9, and November 1766, ch. 14, s. .2, 3. Sim & Lee’s Lessee vs Deakins, 2 Harr, & M'Hen 46. Johns. Diet. tit. Reside. Foster’s Cr. L. 76; and 4 Coke, 40.
    
    
      Pinkney, Ley, Johnson 4" Harper, for the defendant^
    stated, that the question submitted to the court was, what constituted a residence within the meaning of the act of November 1766, ch. 14, s, 2, 3? They contended, 1. That at the time the deed from Ogle and wife to Bosley was executed, the grantors did not reside in the county of Prince-Qeorge’s, and, therefore, that deed did not transfer the estate thereby intended to be conveyed, to the grantee. They referred to the acts of 1715, ch. 47, s. 8, 9; November 1766, ch. 14, s. 2, 3, July 1729, ch. 8 s. 5; J793, ch. 53, s. 7,'22; and 1796, ch 43, s. 14. Const. Art. 2,16? 42. The act of 1799, ch 50, s. 1J, 12. Johns. 
      Diet tit. Reside — Residence — Resident, ami the several examples. Boyer’s Did. tit. Redder. Cunn. Did. tit. Residence. Jacob’s L. D. tit. Resiance — Resiant.
    2. They also contended, that the certificate made on the deed by the clerk of Prince-George’s county court does not pursue the words of the act of assembly of November 1766, ch. 14, s. 3, he having used the words “legally authorised and assigned,” instead of the words of the act, “duly commissioned and sworn.” That intendment could not be admitted to supply the omission of the words u'sed in the law; and that if intendment could be admitted, there was not sufficient matter stated in the certificate to show that the justices had been sworn. They referred to the several decisions made by this court as to the acknowledgments of deeds by femes covert grantors, also the acts of February 1777, ck. 5, if 1796, ch. 43, s. 17; and Dyson vs. West, 1 Harr. &; Johns. 567,
    
    Martin, ('Attorney General,) and Mason,
    
    in reply to the second point, referred to the acts of 1785, ch. 9, s. 8, 9, and 1797, ch. 103. Griffith’s Lessee v Ridgely, 2 Harr, & M'Hen. 418; and Sim, & Lee’s Lessee vs. Deakins, Ibid 46.
    Chase. Ch. J. The court are of opinion, that this case is not distinguishable from the case of Sim ¿f Lee’s Lessee vs Deakins, and that the principles of that case must govern. In tiiat case Warder, by coming into Maryland, acquired a temporary residence sufficient, under the act of assembly, for the purpose of executing and acknowledging the deed. That while in Maryland he owed temporary allegiance, and during his residence was subject to me laws.
    By the ¡aw of nations a stranger is subject to, and has the protection of the laws of the country or stale ink) which be may go. But the court are of opinion, that ¡he term residence is a general term merely to expiess the abode of the person.
    The court are of opinion, tluit if the jury should find that Benjamin Ogle’s principal residence was in Jinnapolis, in JJnne-Jh’undel county; that he voted, served on juries, and was enrolled in the' militia in that county, and no other county; and that from the year 1774 to the year 1780, he with his family temporarily resided at Belle Mr, In Prince-George’s county, during the summer and aittuvnn of the said years, sometimes for a longer and some» times for a shorter time; and should also find that he was with his wife at his said seat in Prince George's county on the 25th of June 1777, the time of the execution of the ’ deed to Bosley, although they should find that he, with his wife, on the said last mentioned day, stopped at Belle Air, his temporary residence in Prince-George's county, fora short time only, on their way to or from PTest-Iliver, in Anne-Arundel county, and during such continuance executed and acknowledged the deed to Bosley; and that Ogle, with his wife, immediately after the execution and acknowledgment of the deed, left Belle Air, and did not go thither with his family to remain during a part of the summer and autumn, according to his said custom, until several weeks after the time of executing the deed; that then the deed is good and valid in law to pass and transfer all the interest of Ogle in the land to Bosley.
    
    The court do not say, that a person going from one county to another can acknowledge a deed for lands laying in a different county; but that a temporary residence, and not a mere transitory residence, is sufficient for that purpose.
    The clerk of the county court is a person intrusted to make the certificate, that the persons, before whom the acknowledgment of the deed was made, were justices of the peace of the county. He had a knowledge of the facts whereupon to ground his certificate, which is to authorise the recording the deed. The court think a substantial compliance with the directions of the act is all that is requisite; and the court consider the words used in the certificate are words of that import. ' The words legally authorised, are of the same import as “duly commissioned and sworn.” The court consider that the justices could not be legally authorised unless they had been commissioned and sworn.
    
    The court are of opinion, that the certificate of the clerk of Prince-George's county court, endorsed on the deed from Benjamin Ogle and wife to James Bosley, is good and sufficient in law to warrant the enrolling the deed by the clerk of Baltimore county court among the land rev cords of that county. The defendant excepted.
    4. The second hill of exceptions. The defendant, to make title to the lands within the lines from figures, &e. on the plots in the cause, offered evidence to prove the plots and explanations; and gave in evidence the certificafes and patents 
      
       of the tracts ofland called Cullen's Lot and Cullen's Addition; the certificate of the former tract dated the 17th of June 1683, and of the latter tract dated the 25th of September 1683; and also gave in evidence the certificate and patent of Hill's Forest before snentioned. And also gave in evidence, that the whole of the land contained within the lines on file plots from 60, shaded blue, to red 7, to red 8, to red 9, to 61, and with the fence shaded yellow to 60, was in the actual possession, enclosure and cultivation, of the defendant, and those under whom he claims, claiming the whole thereof as his and their property for the space of fifteen years, and that then a fence was made from red 7 to X, and from X to 60, and the whole of the land included in the fence from X to red 7, red 8, red 9. to 61, to 60, to X, was continued for seven years as the fence and the inclosure of the defendant, claiming the same as .his own before the bringing this ejeciment. In this case the testimony was, that the fence from 60 to 52, to 53, and so on to 60, was made by the defendant, and those under whom he claims, before the year 1774, and continued to run thus until the year 1783, when the fence was altered, and run from 60 to red 7, 8, 9, black 61 to 60; that this last fence from ml 7, 8, 9 to 61, was in the year 1782 put up by those under whom the plaintiff claims, and those under whom the defendant claims, jointly; that in the latter part of the year 1782, or beginning of the year 1783, the plaintiff, and those under whom he claims, put up the fence running from red 7 to X, as a fence belonging to Hill's Forest, and the owners thereof; that immediately after, in the, year 1783, the defendant removed the fence from 60 to red 7, and run the same from GO across to X, and joined the same to the fence so made by the plaintiff from red 7 to X. The defendant thereupon prayed the opin'nn of the court, and their directions to the jury, that if they were of opinion from the evidence, that the defendant, and those under whom he claims, have held by enclosure and cultivation for more than twenty years, the land included within the lines from 60 to red 7, and red 8, red 9, to 61 to 6o, claiming the same as his own, that then he has title to ihe same by adversary possession, although before the expiration of the twenty years the fence and enclosure was removed from red 7 to X, to 60,- and thereby enlarged the enclosure.
    Chase, Ch. J. The Court refuse to give the' direction prayed, being of opinion that if the juvy' should find that the plaintiff’s lessor, under the direction of the court already given, hath made title to all the tract of land called Hill's Forest, except the 200 acres devised to Nathaniel Ficharclson; and should also find that the land, to which the defendant claims title by adversary possession, in manner herein stated, is included within the true location of Hill’s Forest, that in such case the defendant has no title to the land by adversary possession, having abandoned it by removing his enclosures. The defendant excepted,
    5. The thirdbill of exceptions. The plaintiff to make title to the land claimed by him in this action, read in evidence to the jury the certificate and patent of Hill’s Forest, and showed a title to the land in the- lessor of the plaintiff, under the grantee of the land; and to prove that the said tract is truly located on the plots by him as his claim and pretensions, gave in evidence the plots, and the certificate of a tract of land called Thompson’s Choice, surveyed for James Thompson on the 12th of March 1679, in virtue of a warrant for 550 acres, granted him- the 14th- of January 1679, and also a warrant granted him the 24th of January 1679, for 250 acres, whereby “was laid out for the said Thompson a tract ofland called Thompson’s Choice, lying in Baltimore county, on the Ridge of Gunpowder river. Beginning at a bounded oalc, being the westermost bounds of a tract of land late laid out for Major Sewell 
      
      , and' running IV 500 perches to a bounded oak standing by the great falls, and running N from the said oak 320 perches, then E 500 perches, then with a straight line to the first' bounded tree, containing and laid out for 1000 acres of land more or less.” And also gawe evidence to prove, that the land called Thompson’s Choice is truly located by him on the plots. He also offered evidence to prove the true location of Thompson’s Choice to be from the letter Q on the plots, and .from thence toR, to S, to T, to Q. The defendant then offered evidence to prove, that the true location of the said land was from. I, thence to 10, to 11, to t2, to I. There was no evidence given that Thompson’s Choice was ever run, held or'claimed, by any person interested in the said land, as running from its beginning to Gunpowder river, except so far as relates to the field at the figures 10 on the plots, which field was laid down and proved hy the plaintiff as an ancient possession under the title of Thompson’s Choice. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that inasmuch as no evidence has been given of the bounded tree called for by the certificate of Thompson’s Choice, at the end of its first line, nor of the place where the tree stood, the first line must, according to, and by virtue of the expressions in the certificate, be run so as to terminate at the great falls of Gunpowder river, from whence the remaining courses of the land must be run according to the courses and distances expressed in the certificate thereof.
    Chase, Ch. J. The court refuse to give the direction, as prayed. The court are of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the expressions of the certificate of Thompson’s Choice, as to the termination of the first line thereof, do not operate to bind that line to terminate at the great falls, although no evidence be given of the tree or of the place where it, stood. The defendant excepted.
    6. The defendant offered in evidence the declarations of Col. Young, deceased, then seized of Seure/Ps Fancy, to prove the end of the first line of that tract, which is the beginning of Thompson’s Choice located by the defendant.
    Chase, Ch. J. The court reject the declarations offered in evidence, HeioeU’s Fancy not being located on the plots; and although the second line of that tract runs off from Thompson’s Choice, yet non constat that Young was not attempting to carry back the first boundary or beginning of Sewell’s Fancy, or thus interested.
    
      Verdict. “The jury find for the plaintiff, and say that the true location of Hill’s Forest begins at T, aiul runs to U, thence to Y, thence to W, thence home to T. They further say the true location of Cullen’s Lot begins at A, and runs to 13, thence with the manor line to C, thence to I, thence home to A. That Cullen’s JMdition begins at id, standing- on the manor line, then runs to D. to G, to Hy thence home to C; and lastly, they find for the plaintiff all the land's called Hill’s Forest, as above located, which lies clear of the lands called Cullen’s Lot, and Cullen’s Addition, as above located, and which lies to the eastward of the said division line between the plaintiff’s lessor and Joseph Slee, from red B to red A continued, until it intersects the out line of Hill’s Forest as above located.” Judgment. That the plaintiff recover against the defendant “his term yet to come and unexpired of. in and unto, all that part of the tract of land called Hill’s Forest, situate in Baltimore county aforesaid, located Upon (he plots returned in this cause, beginning at the letter T, and running to U, thence to V, thence to W, and thence home to T, which lies dear of the land called Cullen’s Lot, also located upon the said plots, beginning at A and running to B, thence with the manor line to C, thence to I, and thence home to A, and which lies also clear of the land called Cullen’s Addition, also located on the said plots, beginning at C, standing on the manor line, then running to D, then to G, then to H, and thence home to G, and also which lies to the eastward of the division line between James Git-tings-, the lessor of the plaintiff, and Joseph Slee, from red B to red A continued, until it intersects the out line of the said land called Hill’s Forest as above located, so as aforesaid by the jurors aforesaid found,” &c. On this judgment the defendant brought a Writ of error returnable to this court.
    The cause was argued at the last term, before Buchanan, Nicholson, and Gantt, J.
    
      Key, Harper, and Johnson (Attorney-General,) for the Plaintiff in error,
    in arguing the points which arose under the first bill of exceptions, referred to thcsame authorities which were cited on the part of their client in the general Court, '
    On the second bill of exceptions, they stated that the principle established by the general court, in their opinion given in this bill of exceptions was, that if a man has a parcel of land under inclosure for 15 years, and then enlarges the parcel, and holds the whole by inclosure.for seven years, he did not acquire a title in the first parcel by 20 years possession by inclosure. In opposition to which they cited Russell’s, Lessee vs. Baker, 1 Harr. & Johns, 71.
    
    On the third bill of exceptions they cited Howard vs. Moale, et al. Lessee, (ante, 269, 270.)
    
    They objected to the verdict and judgment on two grounds- — 1. For uncertainty; and 2. For excess over and above the demand — the verdict and judgment being for more land than was claimed in tiie action. They cited 2 Bac. Jib. tit. Damages, (D. 2.) Ibid fit. Error, ('K. 6.) Crumpton vs. Smith, Yelo. 5. 1 Bulst. 49. Clements vs. Waller, 4 Burr 2156. Cuming vs. Sibly, Ibid 2490. Parker vs. Harris, 1 Salk. 162; and Philips vs. Bury, 1 Ld. Raym. 6.
    
      Marlin and T. Buchanan, for the Defendant in error,
    iti their argument on the first bill of exception?., relied upon the authorities cited on the part of the plaintiiFin the court below.
    On the points’respectingthe verdict and judgment, they cited 7 Bac Ab. tit. Verdict, (M.) Co. Litt. 227.a. Trials Per Pais, 293, 304. Carter’s Rep. 80, 94. Vin.Ab. tit. Trial, 407, pl. 29. 2 Roll. Ab. tit. Trial, 707, pl. 42. 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Ejectment, (F.) The act of 1805, ch. 65, s. 44. 1 Tidd’s Pr. 662, 663. Suilivane vs. Scagrave, 1 Stra. 695. 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Ejectment, (D). 2.) 419, 420. Cottingham vs. King, 1 Burr. 629. Conner vs. West, 5 Burr. 2673; and Howard vs. Moale, et al. Lessee, (ante 249.)
    
      
      
        faj Called “Thompson’s Choice”•
    
    
      
      
        CaJ Mr. Thomas resided at West Miner, and was tmsle to Mrs: Ogle. ' ■
      
    
    
      
      
         The counsel for the plaintiff objected to Mrs. Ogle’s being examined, contending that she was called to defeat her own deed. The case of Wilmot vs. Talbot, 3 Harr. & M'Hen. 2, was cited by the defendant’s counsel to show, that a wife was examined to prove that her husband had destroyed the will of his father, whereby he had devised the land in question to his grandson.
      ■ Cka.su, Ch. J. The Court are of opinion, that Mrs. Ogle is a legal and competent Witness. The acknowledgment of the deed made by her is defective, and the deed does not operate to con* vey more than Mr. Ogle’s life estate, and the verdict is this case would not be evidence for her or her heirs.
    
    
      
      
        f aj Neither »f the tracts were patented. ,
    
    
      
      
        ~aj Called Sewell’s Fancy.
      
    
   The Court,

at this term, dissented from the opinions of the General Court in the first and second bills of exceptions, and concurred with that in the third bill of exceptions. Rut the court were of opinion, that the certificate of the clerk of Prince-George’s county court gave an authority to the clerk of Baltimore county court to record the deed from Ogle and wife to Bosley, mentioned in the first bill of exceptions, the court considering the words “legally authorised and assigned,” within the meaning of the act of November li'66, ch. 14.

JUDGMENT REVERSE».  