
    Wm. Wash v. Amos Holmes.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Edgefield — Fall Term 1832.
    rules foi-6ascéi" rc u o eat ion of a Sí order,'arel dkSr& ¿Sfi-cm marks; 3. niiT™! course 5UldihcSs“mpe; thorehasbeenno misdirection by andtiiequestion ipct«ontfUestab-iy!“viuyiw\eibi cottirtbod by the
    This was an action of trespass to try titles. The defendant’s grant was the oldest, and the plaintiff’s deed called for defendant’s land as a boundary. This case therefore depends upon the location of defen-Want’s grant. The land in dispute is the forty-seven acres included within the lines B. C. D.
    The plaintiff contends that the line B. B. and D. is the dividing line between them, and the defendant contends that the crooked line B. C. and C. H. is the dividing line.
    The corner at F. was established. The defendant’s plat ealled for Obadiah Kilcrease’s land as a boundary, and where the defendant’s line intersects bis, the land is cleared.
    The white oak corner at A. falls short of Kilcrease’s land by nine chains. On the line running due North from A. to B. no marked trees were found. Some were found between B. and B. but too young to answer to defendant’s grant. At B. a post oak was found, but the marks were cut out so as to render it impossible to say whether it was an original boundary or not On the line from B. to C. marked trees were found corresponding with the dates of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s grants. The defendant’s plat calls for a pine corner at the North eastern corner; and at C. a pine is found with two corners on it corresponding with both their grants.
    The plaintiff’s corner at H. was found, and between that and the corner at C. are marked trees corresponding with those on the line from B. to C. The plat distance from H. falls short of the corner at C. by six chains eighty links and terminates at E. One of the surveyors had no doubt but that the line A. B. C. B. H. was the true line of division between the parties.
    
      Wm. Coursey proved that the pine corner C. was claimed as the corner by both, parties; and that he heard Wash say “ that the dividing line run from the pine corner through the upper part of the green pond to his (plaintiff’s) stake corner.” He also proved that he knew that the dividing line run from the stake to the pine corner, and that the plaintiff had shewed him the marked trees between the stake and the pine corner. It was also proved that the line B. C. runs through the green pond opposite to defendant’s field between the red oak and post oak.
    
      Levi McDaniel proved that he had known the defendant’s tract of land 31 or 32 years, and had been on the crooked line A. B. C. and considered it as the dividing line between the parties. He proved that he knew the pine corner C. and always considered it as the defendant’s corner.
    There was no doubt as to the location of Obadiah Kilcrease's land, or as to the line D. H.
    The jury found B. D. and D. H. as the dividing line, and five dollars damages.
    The defendant appeals for a new trial on the following grounds.
    1. Because the defendant’s grant being the oldest, he had a right to go to the boundaries called for, to wit, to Kilcreasc's land at the South end and to the pine corner at C. upon the North end.
    2. Because the jury rejected the pine corner at C. and established a new one atD. without any proof.
    3. Because the jury by finding a straight line from B. to D. rejected the old line from B. to C. and established a new line between the parties.
    4. The verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
    Bauskett & Wallace, for the motion,
    Pickens & Carroll, contra.
    
      
      
    
   O’Neall J.

The testimony might, we think, very well have warranted the jury in finding for the defendant, by closing the eastern boundary of his land from the station B to the corner C. notwithstanding it would thus have departed from the course, and materially varied the shape of the original survey. Both of these circumstances, although entitled to weight in a question of location, yet are of less certainty in arriving at a correct conclusion than marked trees. A plat, accompanied by course and distance, stations, corners, and boundaries, is only intended to inform us of the exact location of the land which the surveyor-made. in ascertaining this, we resort, 1st, to natural boundaries, such as rocks, mountains, rivers, and creeks; 2nd, to artificial marks, such as corner trees and stations; 3rd, to adjacent boundaries; 4th, course and distance; and 5th, the shape of the plat. These, in the order they are named, control and fix the location. If therefore, the corner at C. and the station at B. were established, the survey ought to have been closed by extending the line between these two points, without any regard to course and distance or the shape of the plat. But notwithstanding, we should have been better satisfied if the verdict had been for the defendant ; yet as the proof was before the jury Avho were better acquainted with the witnesses than we can be, and who might have disbelieved some on whose testimony we should rely; and as five surveyors concurred in the location contended for by the plaintiff; and as there was no misdirection on the part of the Court, we think that we ought not to interfere with the verdict.

The motion is dismissed*

Johnson J. Concurred.

Harper J. Absent.  