
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1802.
    Webb’s Lessee vs. Beard.
    If the surveyor at the time of sur-véying a junior tract of land, run the elder adjoining: tracts without regard to the calí* therein, or coy. reeling the varia* tion, then to as* certain the beginning of the junior tract at any future period, the elder tracts must be run without regard to the calls there* in or any allow* anCe for vacation Parol evidence is no i admissible to prove that the surveyor never did actually run out or survej the hind included in a certificate of survey returned by him, until after a grant had issued thereon*
    EjectmeNT for a tract of land called Hawn's Venture, lying in Washington county.'
    1. The defendant took defence for the tract called Gleanings, as he liad located it on the plots, which included the whole of the tract of land called Hawn’s Venture, The tract called Gleanings was surveyed for Samuel Chase and Thomas Johnson, Esquires, on the 7th of February 1764, “beginning at a bounded white oak standing at or near the end of 56 perches on the 48th line of The Resurvey on Lime Stone Land. also near the end of IS perches on the 25th line of The Resurvey on Scar’d from Home, and running thence N. 76, E. 162 perches” &c. The tracts called The Resurvey on Lime Stone Land, and The Resurvey on Scar’d from Home, contained a number of calls in the certificates, and if they were now located calling for the boundaries, and where, there were no calls, with an allowance of one degree for every twenty years, since the dates of the certificates, for variation, then Hawn’s Venture would not interfere with, but lay clear of Gleanings; but if the calls were rejected, and no allowance made for variation, then Hawn’s Venture, being a junior tract, would lay within and be covered by Gleanings.
    
    The Coubt \Chasc, Ch. J. and Duvall, J.] determined, that if the surveyor at the time of surveying the tract of land called Gleanings run the tracts of land called The Resurvey on Lime Stone Land, and The Resurvey on Scar’d from Home, without regard to the calls or correcting the variation, then to ascertain the beginning of the tract of land called Gleanings, the above mentioned tracts must be run without, regard to the calls in the certificates or any allowance for variation.
    2. The plaintiff then offered farol evidence to prove that the surveyor of the county, to whom the warrant was directed for taking up and surveying the tract balled Gleanings, never did „ hially run. out or survey it until about two years after the certificate and plot for the same were made out by him and returned to the land office, and after the grant had issued thereon
    
      Key and Shaaff, for the Plaintiff.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General,) Mason and Johnso\i-for the Defendant.
   The Cotjiit refused to permit such evidence to go to the jury. The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.  