
    Jackson, ex dem. Beekman, against Stephens.
    ti’^lieheretoforé ^b^'caiieinn tnffmnhwes® the Kayadcrosthat adopted by ers, for the ditent, ¡n mo an a Baker's falls, are the «third f””jt¡0¡¡ievdel',"¡1¡
    ”„bm?tted Jtbe presumed’11 to® bandoDed,en and r™g°omdmadf new trial,
    THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover part of lot No. 4., in lot No. 1., in lot No. 13., in the 25th allotment of the patent of Kayaderosseras. The cause was tried at the Saratoga circuit, in May, 1815. •
    The principal question in this case was, whether the commissioners who, in 1770, run the boundaries of the Kayaderosseras patent, had taken the true northwesternmost head of the Kayaderosseras creek, and had run the line described in the patent * as follows, correctly: “ thence northerly, to the northwestern-most head of a creek called Kayaderosseras, about fourteen miles, more or less; thence eight miles northerly, thence easter3y to the third falls in Albany river, about twenty miles, more or_ less.’’ If the location made by the commissioners was correct, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the premises in question, to which he deduced a regular title under the Kayaderosseras patent. A variety of evidence was given on the trial, to support and impugn that location, and to show an adverse possession in the defendant, which, however, it is unnecessary to state. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved to have it set aside, and a new trial granted.
    
      Skinner, for the defendant.
    
      J.Emott, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The construction to be given to the Kayade» rosseras patent has been too long and well settled, to be again called in question. The cases of Jackson v. Lindsey, (3 Johns. Cas. 86.,) and Jackson v. Ogden, (1 Johns. Rep. 156.,) show, that the place adopted by the commissioners is to be deemed the northwesternmost head of the Kayaderosseras ; and that the course from thence, eight miles more northerly, must be a due north course. It is admitted that the third falls, mentioned in the patent, are those called Baker's falls; and, running the line according to these objects, will, confessedly, include the premises in question within the patent. The lessor of the plaintiif, hav íñg deduced a regular title to himself, be is entitled to recover, .unless the defendant is .protected by his- length of possession. On this .point there might have been some reason to doubt, had it been made a question upon the trial. Whether there had , . 1 - 1 been a twenty years’1 ¡adversé possession, or not, was- matter pro.per for the .determination, of. the jury; -and the ease furnishes pretty strong- evidence on.this .point,, at.leas't up, tq.‘what,is call.ed the middle line.. But as the question does ;n,ot appear-. to have been at all submitted tó the 'jury,, we.must; presume .-it was1 abandoned upon the trial, and the motiqn for a new trial must be.denied, ■ , . • . . ■ ■ ; . V:.

Motion denied,.  