
    
      William Mathews vs. Henry Horlbeck and others.
    
    The court more readily sets aside a verdict upon a question of location than one upon an ordinary question of fact.
    Plaintiff claimed under a grant dated in 1698, and defendants under grantsdatedin 1696and 1697. Noplatsaccompaniedanyofthe grants. Plaintiff exhibited as evidence of the extent of his claim, a plat, attached to a mesne conveyance belonging, to the chain of his title, dated in 1738. Defendants produced as evidence of the extent of their claim, a plat, attached to a mesne conveyance belonging to the chain of their title, dated in 1811. The question was as to the boundary line separating the lands of the parties. Neither party was in the actual possess on of the land in dispute, but each was in possession of his own tract. Held, that as the time after the plat of 1738, and before that of 1811, wag sufficient to confirm title in the persons under whom the plaintiff claimed, he was entitled to recover all the land covered by his plat, notwithstanding a part of it might be covered by defendants’s elder grants and by their plat.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at Charleston, Spring Term, 1844.
    This was an action of trespass to try title. The parcel of land in dispute was a long slip, the right to which depended upon the location of the line separating the tracts of the parties. Neither party was in the actual possession of the slip in dispute, though, outside thereof, each was in possession of his own tract.
    The plaintiff’s tract is called Snee Farm. He produced the copy of a grant to Nathaniel Law for 1,055 acres, dated 22d of April, 1698, but no plat accompanied the grant. After some intermediate conveyances, a copy was produced from the registry, of a deed dated 5th May, 1738, from Benjamin Law, son and heir of Nathaniel Law, to John Allen, for 715 acres, part of the 1,055 acres, referring to a plat of the 715 acres, certified by the said Benjamin Law, which was recorded along with the deed, and a copy of which was given in evidence. The title was further traced to John Savage, and the copy of a deed was produced from John Savage to Charles Pinckney, (father of Governor Charles Pinckney,) dated 17th September, 1754, referring to a plat annexed to the record, which was nothing more than a copy of Law’s plat of 1738. From Charles Pinckney, the title was deduced to the plaintiff through Charles Pinckney, the son, and F. C, Deliesseline. Upon this tract there had been continued possession since the conveyance to Charles Pinckney, and perhaps long before, and a handsome garden, and adjoining pleasure grounds, besides houses and fields, had long existed on it, and been carefully tended and embellished by Charles Pinckney, Governor Pinckney, and the plaintiff.
    The defendant’s tract is 'called Boone Hall, and was claimed under several grants dated in 1696 and 1697, to John Boone and others, of which grants a memorial was to be found, but without any plat, except for a tract which did not touch the place in dispute. The land granted to John Boone, and the lands contained in at least one of the other grants, were held by Thomas Boone, a descendant of John Boone, in 1737, and then, or afterwards, the whole was united in the Boone family, and descended to John Boone, who died in 1792, he and his ancestors having long before that time had possession of the mansion, which is half a mile from the parcel in dispute, and of cleared lands not embracing the disputed parcel. By deed dated 19th of September, 1811, Sarah Boone and others, heirs of John Boone, (in whom continued possession had remained of Boone Hall since 1792,) conveyed to Thomas A. Var-dell, the tract called Boone Hall, described by reference to a plat thereof, made by Joseph Eaves, dated March, 1811. No other plat of Boone Hall, or of the land claimed by the defendant, was produced. From Thomas A. Var-dell, through John Horlbeck and others, the title and possession of Boone Hall came to the defendants.
    The plaintiff claimed the contents of Law’s plat, and the defendants the contents of Eaves’s. It was clear from the evidence that both plats covered the slip of land in dispute.
    The presiding Judge held, that as before Eaves’s plat there appeared no plat, or other sufficient description of boundary, to shew what land was covered by the grants under which the defendants claimed, or what land had been held by those from whom they claimed title; and as the time after Law’s plat, and before Eaves’s, was sufficient over and over again to confirm title in the persons under whom the plaintiff claimed, to all that was covered by the plat under which he held — there being no opposing possession which by constructive extension to ascertained bounds could interfere with this plat, — Law’s plat should be preferred to Eaves’s; and that the question was, “how should Law’s plat be located;” which question he submitted to the consideration of the jury. The jury found for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Petigru and Bailey, Attorney General, for the motion,
    Memminger, contra.
   Curia, per

Wardlaw, J.

The case of Felder vs. Bonnet, 2 McM. 45, shews that this court more readily sets aside a verdict upon a question of location than one upon.an ordinary question of fact. Where upon established rules it can be seen what conclusion the jury should have obtained,- their erroneous finding will not be permitted to violate those rules.

It may be possible in this case that the original grants of b.oth parties covered the land in dispute, and that Eaves’s established the true line of Boone Hall. If so, the defendant’s grant, as the elder, would prevail. But no plats accompanied the evidence produced of original grants. What land was granted does not appear. And the case is just as if the persons under whom the plaintiff claims, had acquired a title by possession to all the land within Law’s plat, and the defendants had, at the date of Eaves’s plat, taken a junior grant for the land covered by it, and since held possession outside of Law’s plat. It is plain that in such case the constructive possession of the defendants could not extend to the land constructively in the possession of those holding under Law’s plat, there being no actual occupancy by either upon the parcel covered by both plats. The enquiry, then, is as stated below. How should Law’s plat be located 1

His Honor then proceeded to shew that, from the evidence given on the trial, it was clear that Law’s plat covered the land in dispute, and concluded by ordering a new trial.

The whole Court concurred.  