
    Karn's Lessee vs. Hughes.
    Appeal from Washington County Court. This was an action of ejectment to recover a tract of land called Walling’s Mistake The defendant, (now appellee,} took defence on warrant, ahd plots were made.
    A am! B claim? ed the same laud wtvder different giants, bearing the same date, is» s'li'd on certificate pf survey, also bearing the same date, made under common warrants; that to B granted by renewment on the 29ih of October 1754. and that to A granted on the 3d ofFebuuary 3755, but A1s certificate was first examined and passed In an ac> tion of ejectment brought by the lessee of A — Held, that he was not entitled to recover, although the grant to A actual-1 ly issued before the grant to B.
    1. The plaintiff at the trial produced in evidence a grant for the tract of land called Walling’S Mistake, dated the 8th of March 1755, to iAlexander M'Ciillomt for 25¿- acres of land, which grant recites a commori warrant granted on the 5th of March 1755, to the Said M'Cullom, for 25s acres of land, and a certificate of survey made the 8th of March 1755. He also offered evidence, from the records of the land office, that the warrant issued on the 3d of February 1755, that the survey was made on the 8th of March 1755, and was examined and passed on the 10th of December 1755, and that the grant issued thereon on the 8th of March 1755. He also offered in evidence a deed from M'Cullom to the lessor of the plaintiff, for said land, dated the 22d of March 1802. He also proved, that in March 1754, M'Cullom lived on the land, and always claimed it. The defendant then ottered in evidence a grant to James. Walling for Teague’s Disppointment, dated the 8th of March 1755, for 30 acres ofland, reciting a warrant dated by renewment the 29th of October 1754, and a certificate thereunder returned the 8th of March 1755, and which was examined and passed on the SOth of June 1756. He also offered in evidence a deed from Walling to John Mason for the last mentioned land, dated the 29th of October 1765. He also proved, that 30 years ago one Kearsly lived upon the said land, and afterwards one Stiff/, both of whom claimed under the defendant; that afterwards one Wolf lived on it, and claimed under M'Cullom, who sold his right to one Myers, and after Myers left it, M'Cullom sold the same to the plaintiff’s lessor by the deed before mentioned. He also proved, that on the 28th of April 1791, a warrant of forcible detainer was issued against Myers, and when the jury met the dispute was agreed, and Myers became the tenant of the defendant, and that Wolf was present at the time, and that the defendant has ever since remained in possession. The plaintiff then prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they were of opinion, from the evidence; that the certificates of surveys for Wal 
      
      ling’s Mistake am] Teague’s Disappointment, bear date on the same day, but t]iat the grant for Walling’s Mistake actually issued before the grant for Teague’s Disappointment, that then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Which direction the court, \Ckigctt and Shriver A. J] refused to give. The plaintiff escepted.
    2. The defendant then prayed' the court to direct the jury, that under the evidence offered, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. This direction the court gave to the jury. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Pole, Nioiiocsoji, gruí Earls, J. by
    
      T. Buchanan, for the Appellant;
    and by
    
      Brooke, for the Appellee.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  