
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1798.
    Ridgely’s Lessee vs. Ogle and Leonard.
    Ejectment for part of a tract of land called The Level, lying in Anne-Arundei county, containing 100 acres. The defendants pleaded non cwL and took defence on warrant. Issue joined and plots returned.
    The pbaintxbe at the trial, to make title to the land in the declaration mentioned, read in evidence to the jury patents for the followinglands, viz. The Level, granted to John Cross on the 6ih of October 1683, for 364 acres; and ISilks Delight, granted to Henry Hill on the 10th of June 1736, for 621 acres; also a certificate and patent for a tract of land surveyed for Zephaniah Smith, on the 21st of June 1650, and granted to Richard Gwen on the 12th of February 1658, for 585 acres; also a certificate and patent for a tract of land surveyed for Zephaniah Smith on the 27th of November 1651, and patented to Richard Given on the 12th of February 1658, for 685 acres. All which surveys and patents were located by the plaintiff on the plots returned in this cause, and which, together with the explanations thereof, were read in evidence to the jury.
    The plaintiff also read in evidence to the jury, indeu-v tures of bargain and sale, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, from John Cross, the original patentee of the said land callea The Level, to Eobert Johnson, dated 12th of August 1700, for 100 acres part of the said tract of land; and from John Cross and Robert Johnson to Absalom Ridgely, the lessor of the plaintiff, dated the 27th of April 1795, for the said 100 acres part of the said tract of land called The Level. Which said two deeds the plaintiff located on the said plots, and read the said locations thereof in evidence to the jury.
    The plaintiff then offered evidence to the jury, to prove that John Cross, in the last mentioned deed named, is the heir at law of John Cross the original patentee of the said land called The Level; and that Robert Johnson, in the last mentioned deed named, is the heir at law of Robert Johnson first named, the person mentioned in the deed from John Cross the original patentee of the land called The Level.
    
    The plaintiffthen offered evidence to the jury to prove that the said deed of bargain and sale from Cross and Johnson, to Ridgely, the lessor of the plaintiff, was signed, sealed and delivered, by the said Cross and Johnson, at the place upon the plots at figure 16, as marked upon the said plots, and within the lines of the land mentioned, contained and described in the said deed from the said Cross and Johnson to the said Ridgely, and within the lines of the said land called The Level — and thatthesaid Cross and Johnson, at the time of executing the said deed to the said Ridgely. did deliver actual seisin of the land contained in the said deed, to the said Ridgely.
    
    The plaintiff also offered evidence to the jury to prove that the true original locations of the land surveyed for Zeyhaniah Smith on the 21st of June 1650, and on the 27th of November 1651, and the land called The Level, are according to the plaintiff's locations thereof, on the plots returned in this cause; also that the true original location of the said deed from Cross and Johnson to Ridgely, is as the same is located by the plaintiff on the said plots; also that the true original location of the land called Hill’s Delight is as the plaintiff has located the same upon the said plots.
    The plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury, that all the land by him claimed in this action, and included in the deed from Cross and Johnson to Ridgely, located as is herein before stated, is, and always has been, in woods and unenclosed, except so much thereof as is included within the dotted lines numbered 16, &e. and except so much as is also included within the lines from 1 to 36, &c. and that those two parcels of land have both been cleared and enclosed by the defendants within less than fourteen years from this time; and that since the bringing of this action, the said defendants have taken away the fence from around the said two parcels of land, and that the same are now unenclosed.
    The plaintiff then read in evidence to the jury, the copies of sundry indentures, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, viz. from John Cross, the original patentee, and Eleanor his wife, to Thomas Reynolds, dated the 28th of October 1701, for the residue of the tract of land called The Level, (100 acres whereof had been sold to Robert Johnson) being 164 acres; from the said Thomas Reynolds, and Sarah his wife, to Joseph Hill, dated the 20th of March 1701-2, for the said part conveyed by the said Cross to the said Reynolds; from the said Joseph Hill to Henry Hill, (the patentee of the land called Hill’s Delight) dated the 12th of May 1713, for the said last mentioned part of the said land called The Level; and from the said Henry Hill to William Thomas, dated the 6th of December 1764, for the said last mentioned part of the said tract of land.
    The plaintiff then offered to prove to the jury, that Mart], the wife of Joseph Leonard, one of the defendants, is the heir at law of the said William Thomas, and that the said William Thomas is dead.
    The plaintiff, to prove that the aforesaid Henry Hill admitted that a part of the said land called The Level did not belong to him the said Hill, offered a witness, to wit, John Gilliss, the grand-son of the said Hill, who swore, that in a conversation which he had with Joseph Hill, his uncle, and son of the said Henry Hill, about the year 1740, respecting an ejectment between one Hill, the then holder of the land called Hill’s Delight, and part Of the said land called The Level, and one Watkins, which was then depending, the said Joseph Hill told him, that the said Henry Hill, grand-father of the witness, never did claim the whole of the said tract of land called The Level. The said Gilliss further proved, that the said Joseph Hill has been dead many years.
    Tsíe Defendants, to support the issue on their part, offered in evidence and read to the jury the following deeds, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, viz. from William Jones to James Heath, dated the 18th of July 1710, for two tracts of land granted to Richard Owen on the 12th of February 1658; from the said James Heath to Joseph Hill, dated the 14th of March 1710, for the said last mentioned two tracts of land, and from the said Joseph Hill to Henry Hill, dated the 12th of May 1713, to shew.title in the said Henry Hill to the tract of land called Smith’s Neck. And also offered evidence to prove, that the said William Jones was heir at law to Richard Owen, the patentee of the said land, by the recital in the deed from the said Heath to the said Joseph Hill', and also by proving the said tract 0¡> jan(j <-0 },ave been held by the said Joseph Hill, and those claiming under him, from the date of the said deed to the present day.
    The defendants then read in evidence to the jury the patent aforesaid for the said land called The Level; also the deed from John Cross, and wife, to Thomas Reynolds; and the deed from the said Reynolds and wife to Joseph Hill', also the copy of the deed from the said Joseph Hill to Henry Hill, dated the 12th of May 1713, for the land called Harness, containing 400 acres, Owen’s land, granted to Richard Owen the 12th of February 1658, for 585 acres, and 160 acres part of The Levelj also the patent to Henry Hill for the land called Hill’s Delight; and proved that Henry Hill, in the said patent mentioned, and Henry Hill in the deed from Joseph Hill mentioned, was one and the same person.
    The defendants then gave in evidence to the jury the record, and plot and explanations, in an ejectment tor Smith’s JVec/c, brought in the provincial court in the year 1713, by the aforesaid Joseph Hill, lessee of Henry Hill, against the aforesaid Robert Johnson, (mentioned in the deed from John Cross to Robert Johnsonf) and that in the said action of ejectment, the defendant, Robert Johnson, on the plots returned in the said cause, took defence for and located the 100 acres by him purchased from John Cross, in the same manner as the defendants in this cause have located the same on the plots in this cause, beginning, &c. and that the creek at the head of which figures 23 stand, was also known by the name of Enlargement Creek, and as such located by the said Johnson on the plots in the said cause.
    The defendants further gave in evidence the record of a suit between the said Robert Johnson, and Eleanor Cross, administratrix of the before mentioned John Cross, stating a recovery in the provincial court of 501. sterling, and 351. 12s. Id. current money damages, and 3355 pounds of tobacco costs, in an action of covenant to recover the consideration money paid by the said Johnson to the said J. Cross, for the said 100 acres, part of the land called The Level, the said Johnson having been therefrom ejected, &c, by the said Hill’s Lessee. CS'ee the declaration in 1 Harr. Ent. 526.]
    The defendants further gave in evidence to the jury, a plot 
       and illustrations in an action of ejectment brought by the lessee of a certain Thomas Wail,ins against a certain Joseph Hill, wherein the tract of land called 
      The Level was located as beginning at the figures 23 herein before referred to, and at the head of a creek then considered and known by the name of Enlargement Creek.
    The defendants further gave in evidence the location of Smith’s Neck, on the plots in the action of ejectment between Hill’s lessee and Johnson, and transferred to, and located on the plots in this cause, from black 1, at the head of Enlargement Creek, to a post at figures 10 at the head of Smith’s Creek, to prove that the 100 acres of land, sold by the said John Cross to the said Robert Johnson, was included in, and swallowed up by the said tract of land called Smith’s Neck, and that tke tract of land called The Level actually was originally taken up and located at the place at figures 23, marked on the plots in this cause.
    The defendants further gave in evidence to the jury, that from the time of the recovery in the action of eject merit first herein mentioned, to the day of the execution of the deed from Cross and Johnson to Ridgely, the recoverer, Joseph Hill, and those claiming under him, have held and occupied the lands so recovered- — and also that neither the said Cross or Johnson, who conveyed to the said Ridgely, nor any of their ancestors, have at any time since the recovery in the said ejectment, lived upon, or in any manner used or occupied, any part of the tract of land called’ The Level, as located either by the plaintiff or the defendants on the plots in this cause, or any other land thereto adjoining. That the said Cross and Johnson, and their respective ancestors, have ever since the recovery aforesaid been residents of Anne-Arundel county, and in the neighbourhood of the said land; aud that the said Cross and Johnson, who sold to the said Ridgely, are between the ages of so and 60 years respectivelyj and that Joshua, the father of the said John Cross, who conveyed to the said Ridgely, died about the year 1760, and was at that time an old man, and was son of the original patentee of the said land called The Levelj and also that the father of the said Johnson died about the year 1767, and was an elderly man, and the son of Robert Johnson, who purchased the said 100 acres of John Cross, and against whom the said Joseph Hill's lessee recovered the said land.
    The defendants also gave in evidence, that from the time of the conveyance to William, Thomas, and during his possession, and ever since, those claiming under him have use and enjoyed, without interruption, the land located by the plaintiff for his pretensions on the plots in this cause, by cutting wood and timber, getting rails, and making tobacco beds thereon, from time tp time they had occasion to do so; and that part of the same, as located on the plots, was actually under enclosures at ¿]le ¿jmü this suit was brought, and for ten years or longcr next preceding the commencement of this suit. That a iiouse standing at figures 51 on the plots in this cause, was, 45 years ago, in the possession of E. Edwards, a tenant and overseer of the proprietors of Smith’s Neck, and some time after, B. Barry, another overseer of one of the said proprietors, lived in the said house. 
    
    The defendants then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that upon the facts so offered in evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in this action.
    
      Martin (Attorney General,) for the defendants,
    contended, that the recovery in the ejectment by Henry Hill’s lessee vs. Robert Johnson, and the recovery by Robert Johnson against the administratrix of John Cross, precluded and estopped Johnson, or any person claiming under him, from recovering against the defendants in this cause, by virtue of a title under the deed from Cross to Johnson,
    
    He stated, that the tract of land called The Level was patented in 1683, and has its beginning at a white oak standing at the head of Enlargement Creek, being the place of beginning of the tract called Smith’s Neck. It cannot be presumed that Johnson did not know where the head of the creek was when he laid down The Level in the former ejectment, for there was then only if or 18 years between the time of the grant and the ejectment. The seller and buyer must have known very well where the land lay, and Johnson located The Level on the plots in the former ejectment, in the same manner as the defendants do now; laying the beginning at the same place. Smith’s Neck had a different beginning from The Level, and therefore could not be controuled by The Level. The plots in the former ejectment are a solemn admission on record as to the location of the land, and according to Johnson’s location, The Level is swallowed up in Smith’s Neck. It is on that ground Johnson ¡recovered back the purchase money from Cross’s administratrix, who admitted in him the right to recover of her. Johnson having received a compensation for the land, he and those claiming under him, are therefore precluded by the recoveries. If the facts upon which the recoveries are grounded are not true, they cannot now be controverted. The location by Johnson in the former ejectment is his plea, and it is a matter of record, by which he is precluded from averring against that location. Vernon’s case, 4 Co. 5. 10 Vin. tit. Estoppel 427, c. 2. pi, 2. Also Co, Lit. 352, to show that what ls alleged to be true by the party shall not afterwards be contradicted.
    Mason, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that there was no estoppel, and that the justice of the case was with the plaintiff. That the ejectment by Hill’s lessee vs. Johnson, will not have the effect of an estoppel in this case. That Johnson is not concluded by the location made in that ejectment, hut may controvert it; and that the lora-> tion, although coupled with a subsequent recovery, will not estop. That every estoppel must conclude both parties and he l'eciprocal — Co. Litt. 352. a. That the cases in 4 Go. 5, and in 10 Fin. 427, are between privies.
    He contended that the administratrix of Cross was neither a party, nor a privy, and that Cross’s heir is not bound by the admissions of the administratrix — It is no evidence against Cross’s heir, and it is not binding on Johnson. Who is it that claims the benefit of the estoppel? The present defendants are strangers and cannot take advantage of it. There can be no estoppel in ejectment. In real actions all persons interested are made parties by voucher. A judgment in ejectment is no bar, but it is evidence. If Johnson is estopped and barred, the land ought to go to Cross. The right ought to be revived in Cross if evicted from Johnson. Cross has the equitable title.
    
      Shaajf, on the same side. The old ejectment was brought for Smith’s Meek, and the defendant located The Level within the lines of Smith’s Meek,
    Estoppels are not favoured by the law, but must bé taken strictly, for they prevent the party from alleging the truth. They must be reciprocal — 3 Com. Big. 271. A stranger shall not take advantage of the estoppel.
    Suppose the fictitious lease in an ejectment was made by a real lessor to a real lessee, the act of the lessee could not affect the lessor. A second ejectment may be brought, and the trial of the first ejectment is not con-elusive.
    Suppose the question was only as to the title, the judgment in ejectment would not be conclusive. The verdict in the case of Hill’s lessee vs. Johnson cannot transfer the right; and the verdict in favour of Johnson vs. Cross’s administratrix, cannot injure or benefit the present defendants.
    Chase J. He who makes title to a tract of land, and' is in possession of part, is in possession of the whole &c-cording to the true limits and real position of the land.
    The recovery in ejectment by Hitt's lessee against Hobert Johnson, in 1713, of the part of The Level conveyed to him by John Cross, being included in Smith’s Neck, an elder tract, divested the possession out of Johnson, an(j vested the same in Hill; and Robert Johnson, and those claiming under him, never having been in possession since, and more than twenty years having elapsed since the recovery by Hill against Johnson, anterior to the bringing this ejectment, the court are of opinion that these facts, if found by the jury, are conclusive evidence of the location of the 100 acres, part of The Level, for which part this ejectment is brought, as made by the defendants, and that the plaintiff had no right of entry, and has failed in making out a title to recover the possession in this action.
    The recovery by Hill vs. Johnson of the part of The Level, purchased by him of John Cross, in virtue of a title paramount to the title of John Cross, and Johnson’s acquiescence under the same, was an eviction and divestment of the title out of Robert Johnson.
    
    
      Robert Johnson’s recovery of damages against the administratrix of John Cross, on the covenant for quiet enjoyment, in the deed from Cross to Johnson, with the concurrence of the preceding facts before recapitulated, operated to extinguish all right and title Johnson had in the said 100 acres part of The Level.
    
    The acquiescence of John Cross, and his descendants, under the said recoveries, and their never having since resumed the possession of the said land, after such a lapse of time, have operated an extinguishment of all right and title in the said land in the said John Cross, and those deriving or claiming an interest under him.
    The Court [Goldsborough, Ch. J. and Chase,!, 
      
       caused the following opinions and directions to the jury to be entered in the bill of exceptions, taken in the cause, viz:
    “The Court are of opinion, that the recovery iu ejectment by Henry Hill’s lessee against Robert Johnson, in the year 1713, of the 100 acres part of The Level, conveyed by John Cross to Robert Johnson, divested the possession out of the said Johnson; and the possession' and right thereof were by the said judgment-vested in the said Henry Hill. And further, that if the jury find the said Robert Johnson, and those claiming under him, have not been in possession of the said land since the said judgment, the court are of opinion that the plaintiff in this action had no right of entry, and hath failed in making out a title to the said land in question.
    «Thh Couet are also of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the said recovery, and the recovery by Robert Johnson against the administratrix of John Cross, and the jury finding the said Robert Johnson, and those claiming and deriving title under him, have never been in possession of the said land since the said judgment and recovery in ejectment in 1713 by Henry Hill's lessee against Robert Johnson, that the same are conclusive evidence of the location of the said 100 acres part of The Level, as made by the defendant, Robert Johnson, on the plots in the said cause, and that the present plaintiff, for the causes aforesaid, is precluded and estopped from locating that part of The Level by him claimed as sold and conveyed by John Cross to Robert Johnson, by deed bearing date the 12th day of August 1700, as aforesaid, in any other manner than that in which the said Robert Johnson located the .same on the aforesaid plots in the said ejectment between Hill’s lessee and Johnson in the year 1712.
    « And the Court are further of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the entry by the aforesaid John Cross and Robert Johnson, on the Sfth of April 1795, at the time and for the purpose of executing the aforesaid deed to Msalorn Ridgely, and the livery of seisin sq by them to him made of the lands claimed in the present ejectment fey the plaintiff, is inoperative to support tbs plaintiff’s title.”
    • The Peaintiee having excepted to the court’s opi« bío ns, and the verdict and judgment being against him,, be appealed to the court of appeals.
    In the Couet oe Appeals.
    
      Bhaaff for the Appellant
    This case arises on as ejectment for part of The Level, conveyed by John Cross the patentee, to Robert Johnson, and conveyed fey the heirs of John Cross and Robert Johnson to the appellant,
    Tiie appellant (the plaintiff below,) proved that the grantors to the plaintiff are the heirs to John Grass and Robert Johnson, and that John Cross the patentee, by deed of October 1701, conveyed all The Level except 100 acres formerly conveyed by Robert Johnson to Thomas Reynolds.
    This land was also conveyed to Henry Hill and to JVü~ Ham Thomas, excepting the 100 acres.
    The defendants proved Smith’s JTeck to have been conveyed to Joseph Hill, and by him to Henry Hill, 12th Nlay 1713. Also a judgment and verdict by Henry Hill's 
      lessee against Robert Johnson, on the 13th of October 1713, in which Johnson located the land as the defen^antS *n ^lis Suit*
    After this judgment, viz. 1st May 1716, Robert Johnson by judgment and verdict, recoverecl the value of the land from Eleanor Cross, administratrix of the patentee John Cross.
    
    The defendants gave in evidence the plot and explanations in an ejectment by Thomas Watkins’s lessee against Joseph Hill. That Smith’s Neck swallowed up The Level; that from the time of the recovery by Henry Hill, he and those claiming under him, held the land so recovered; that Johnson, &c. never used the same; and that from the time of the recovery the recoverer has used the land by cutting timber thereon.
    The amount of this statement is — that the plaintiff proved a title to him by deed from the heir both of Cross the patentee, and Johnson, for 100 acres of The Level; and offered to prove the true location as lie contends.
    The defendants, to rebut his title, and to prevent him from proving the truth of such location, traced a title in Smith’s Neck to Henry Hill, and also of The Level, except 100 acres conveyed to Robert Johnson. The first conveyance to Reynolds is the 28th of October 1701.
    Also a recovery in ejectment by Henry Hill’s lessee against Robert Johnson, in October 1713, in which the 100 acres are located as the defendants do in this case; and a recovery by Johnsonvs. Cross’s administratrix, in May 1716, for the value of the land; and possession of the land recovered by the recoverer, &c. &c.
    The opinion of the General Court may be divided into two parts — r
    First part — That the recovery by Hill in 1713, against Johnson, divested the right of possession out of Johnson, and vested the possession and right thereof in Hill; and if Johnson, and those claiming under him, have not been in possession of the said land since the recovery, that the plaintiff in this action has failed to make title to the said land in question.
    
    Second part — That the said recovery, and the recovery by Johnson against Cross’s administratrix, are conclusive evidence of the location of the land sold to Johnson, and the plaintiff is estopped to locate it different from the said ejectment,
    I will consider the case in the same manner the court have given their opinion.
    1. The verdict and judgment in the case of Hill’s lessee vs. Johnson, was for Smith’s Neck, which in that ejectment was located as in this cause; and Johnson there located his ICQ acres in Smith’s Neck, according to Hill’s 
      location; by that judgment no land except Smith’s Neck could be recovered.
    In the present case The Level, and the 100 acres, are located wholly to the northward of Smith’s Neck. The plaintiff’s claim is for land wholly different from that which was claimed in the former ejectment.
    The former recovery then can give no right of possession to the land in question in this suit, because wholly different land — This seems self evident. But it may be said, that the court, by their opinion that the plaintiff had not made title to the said land in question, meant the land in question in the former ejectment of Hill and Johnson. This cannot be, because no point; for the plaintiff does not here claim the land situated as in that cause - — He pretends no title to any such.
    Then admitting that the plaintiff’s locations are true, (and he offered to prove it, and the court cannot judge of the propriety of such location,) the court have said that the recovery of land in one place has vested a right to land in another.
    The court’s opinion seems clearly wrong in this respect.
    2.1 will consider the case of the ejectment, and then the recovery of Johnson against Cross’s administratrix.
    It is obvious that the deed was wrong located in that ejectment.
    And the manner in which the mistake happened is apparent from the certificate and return of the surveyor. The third line of the deed to Johnson from Cross, is a N» & by W. course 186 perches. The land is laid down W. & by N. course. Now, even if the land begins, as the defendants locate it and run the courses of the deed, the plaintiff must recover.
    The form and shape of the land are different, and if the .true lines of the deed were run even from the point the defendants locate it the plaintiff must recover.
    This deed could only be laid down for illustration; it was wholly immaterial whether it was laid down or not, because the suit being brought for Smith’s Neck, the eldest tract, the whole case depended on the true location of that land.
    It is of the greatest importance that this decision should be well weighed, because it must go far to prpve that a recovery in ejectment is a bar.
    
      Estoppels go to prevent the party from saying the truth; are to be taken strictly, and are considered odious — 10 Yin. 423. 4 Bac. 106 — must be mutual, and no person, but a party, privy, &c. can take advantage of it — a stranger cannot-?-Co. Lit. 352. 3 Com. Dig. 271* 4 Bac. ■fib. 106. 10 Yin. 447, 450. From this principle, a judgment and proceeding in ejectment are no bar.
    
      When ejectment was a real proceeding, there was an actual lessee, of course the lessor being a stranger could not be bound by it, and of course he could not take advantage of it.
    The same reason prevailed when ejectment was put into its present form — 19 Vin. 321.
    It is now settled law, that a verdict and judgment in ejectment are no bar.— Run. on Eject. 5, &c.
    If this is the cáse, the judgment must be wrong, because the opinion is that the recovery is conclusive*
    If the judgment is no bar, it cannot be conceived that any part of the proceedings can be. The plots are part of the proceedings.
    If the ejectment is no bar, the verdict and judgment against Cross’s administratrix cannot be; because the defendants are strangers to that verdict and judgment.
    
    Those under whom the defendants claim, do so under a deed from Cross in 1701. In 1716 this verdict was had. It was out of the power of Cross’s representatives to do any act to injure the defendants ancestors, after the deed in 1701; and of consequence they cannot take advantage of the estoppel.
    This reason would apply even if the recovery was had against the heir of Cross, because the party claimed the land under a conveyance before the verdict, &c. But here the recovery was against the administratrix, who bad nothing to do with the land, and from whom the defendants do not claim.
    It is inconceivable on what principle this recovery can have the effect to give title to the defendants. Where-ever the true location of The Level is, there are 100 acres of land sold to Johnson, and not conveyed to Henry Hill.
    
    If the recovery against Cross’s administratrix has any effect, if can only vest it in Cross’s heirs, not in Hill’s, who never paid for it to any one. The plaintiff makes bis title through both Johnson and Cross.
    
    All these proceedings might have been evidence, strong evidence, against the plaintiff, but no bar.
    From hence it follows, that the ejectment and the lo» cations therein are not sufficient to bar the party; and that the recovery of Johnson against Cross cannot' bar the plaintiff.
    If one has a good defence, and joins with one who lias none, he loses the benefit of it — Stra. 509. 994.
    In this case Benjamin Ogle, one of the defendants, is not stated by the bill of exceptions to claim under Cfoss or Johnson, and therefore wholly a stranger to the proceedings, of course cannot take advantage of such estoppel.
    
      It must be acknowledged that a stranger cannot take advantage of an estoppel, of consequence Mr. Ogle, being as far as appears from this record an entire stranger, he could not have pleaded it. Then even admitting that under not guilty in ejectment, this estoppel may he given in evidence, yet it surely must be allowed that it cannot be taken advantage of in evidence by a per» con who could not have pleaded it.
    This then surely proves that the opinion of the court is wrong, because they have said that the plaintiff is,; not entitled to recover from Mr. Ogle.,
    
    
      Ogle and Leonard being joined in one action, and having a joint defence, if void as to one, is void as to ths whole. — Stra. 509, 994, 1J84.
    This principal may prove that Leonard has waved the benefit of any advantage resulting from this cause, but cannot give Mr. Ogle any advantage.
    If it should he contended that any defendant may shew that the plaintiff in ejectment has no title, it is hut begging the question; because you must first shew’ that tiie defendants can lake advantage of the estoppel. This proceeding does not take from the plaintiff any right, but only, it is contended, precludes him from chewing it.
    
      Mason on the same side, 
    
    Martin, (Attorney General) and USey? for the appellees. 
    
    
      
      
         The Court said the plot was admissible in evidence, upon the same principle that hearsay is allowed to prove boundaries.
    
    
      
      
         The Court decided in this case, that where a certain object, as a fence, house, creek, &c. was designated on theplots, and known to the witness, he might give evidence of any cutting on, or user or cultivation of the land on the N. JB. or in any other direction from ifte spot located on the plots.
    
    
      
      
         Duvall, 3. having been concerned ar,' counsel for the plaintiff 5Hh*ot sit.
    
    
      
      
         Notes of the arguments of these gentlemen in the court of appeals, have not been obtained.
    
   The Coini'i- ge Appeals affirmed the judgment os the general court, at June term, 1800.  