
    
      Symonds vs. True Blood.
    
    npHE plaintiff’s deed covered a piece of laud including that in dispute ; and of the whole of this piece, the defendant had been more than seven years in possession, and the plaintiff has had no possession of any7 part during that time : but the defendant enten a into the common rule, not only for this piece, but for another piece adjoining, which bad- been in the possession of the plaintiff; so that taking the piece defended for altogether, plaintiff had possessed one part, and defendant all the rest* That part however, which the plaintiff had possessed, was no otherwise a part of the disputed lands, than, as it was defended.by defendant : for defendant’s deed did. not cover it, and he did; not on the trial claim.it.
   Taylor., Judge.

The record only can shew us what land is in dispute, and that appears to he a tract composed of different parcels; part whereof the plaintiff has possessed, and part the defendant. Then the rede applies, that he who is in possession of part of the tract claimed by both, though the other is also in possession of part, shall be deemed the possession of the whole s eonsequeatly, the defendant has no legal possession of any party and, the plaintiff’s title must prevail,

§>urrc de hoc, for possession of plaintiff extends as far as tbs bounds expressed in the deed under which he claims, and no. farther; and if he has sold part out of the deed, as far as the boundaries of the remaining part, and cannot be enlarged by the circumstance of defending for more than he has possessed, had the defendant entered into the common rule for more than he had really possessed, he had a good title thereto i and what law says he shall forfeit that if he claims more ? This decision, however, has certainly imposed that forfeiture on him.  