
    John Douglass et ux v. Lemuel Fernandis.
    Course and distance are less to be confided in than any other of the evidences of location, and must always yield to natural or artificial marks, stations, or boundaries, where the latter can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of probability : Thus, where a corner, called for by a plat, was found within a few chains of the spot indicated by course and distance •, and the line from that corner was identical with a boundary called for by the plat, although on a different side of the tract: Held, that the location must be governed by the corner and boundary; anda verdict founded on course and distance-alone, was set aside.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Union, Fall Term, 1829.
    Trespass to try titles. The plaintiff’s title was derived from a grant to Swanson Lunsford, in 1799. The defendant claimed under a grant to Lot Porter, in 1796 ; and the only question in the case was whether the locus in quo was covered by the grant to Porter.
    The plaintiff’s claim, about the location, of which there is no controversy, is represented by the black lines.
    
      G. ® Water Oak. I 1
    The dotted lines represent so much of thelocation of the grant to Porter, made by the surveyor under the rule of resurvey, as is necessary to the question in this case. From this it is apparent, that the grant to Lunsford is covered by the grant to Porter, except as to a few acres, designated by the letter A, between the black and do tted lines. In the plat annexed to the grant to Porter, vacant land is called for on the North-East, designated by the jettel. anc[ Cook’s land as a boundary on the South, designated ^y the letter C : A post oak is also called for at the corner D, and one is found at E, the plaintiff’s corner ; but whether the 0f the marks correspond with plaintiff’s or defendant’s grants, did not appear, as it was not examined but, upon the resurvey, it was found that this post oak was Cook’s corner, and that his lands lay on the North-East instead ofthe South, running by a line identical with the plaintiff’s line E. F. In locating the grant to Porter, the surveyor began at the corner G, which is conceded to be the true corner, and he proceeded to close his lines from thence by course and distance alone, without regarding the post oak found at E, or Cook’s line from E to F, because Cook’s land was called for on the South, instead of the NorthEast. The jury, contrary to the opinion of the presiding judge, found for the plaintiffs, the lands at A. between the dotted and black lines.
    Vide 2 Mill, 999]3ftfC&167 215, 232, 255. ftrC^E^Harper 454.
    The defendant now moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the ground : That by a correet location of the grant to Porter, the whole of the lands claimed by the plaintiffs is within it, and therefore the verdict is palpably contrary to evidence.
    Irby & Spencer, for the motion.
    A. Wi'Thompson, contra.
    
   Johnson J.

delivered the opinion Ofthe Court.

When the original boundaries of lands become the subject of dispute, a resurvey is necessary to ascertain, where the original surveyor pointed his compass, or made his mark; and the rules elicited by the numerous cases that have occurred in our Courts, have been designed to develope the truth as far as was Practica^e- Amongst these it will be found, that course and distance arc less to be confided in than any other evidence of boundary; and this, because they are seldom or never entirely relied upon, and are of all others the most subject to misconception and error, and only serve as a guide in the absence of all other. 1 M’C. 167. 215. The defendant’s land is located according to this rule, and under the supposition that there is no other boundary. But the grant to Porter calls for a post oak corner at D, and one is found at E, within a few chains of it, and no other reason is given why the line should not be extended .to it, than that the course and distance do not exactly reach it. Again, Cook’s land is called for as a boundary on the South ; but he had no land there, and it is found on the North-East: and can any man doubt that it was put on the South by mistake of the surveyor ! Does not every one know that plats are made up from loose memoranda made in the field! And can we be ignorant how often it happens that boundaries are transposed! Here the course and distance lead within a very few chains of Cook’s line, and describe aline running exactly parallel with, and near to it, almost its whole extent : and is there a sceptic so great as to believe that the surveyor, who located Porter’s grant, did not intend it as a boundary there 1 Our books of reports furnish many cases on this subject, and upon reference to them it will be found, that lands have been located on the opposite side of a water course from that on which it was represented to lie ; and that it has been necessary to reverse every course in the plat to obtain the true location; because in the application of the plat to the marks of location found on the ground, it was apparent that the description given in the plat was erroneous : And I cannot conceive of one more palpably so, than exists here. This ease was tried before myself, and I feel a consciousness that the verdict was in some degree the effect of my confidence, that the error was so palpable, that it would be seen and appreciated by the jury; which led to a neglect on my part to illustrate and enforce the rule, as fully as might have been done. A new trial ought therefore to be granted.

Harper J. concurred. O’Neall J. gave no opinion, having been of counsel in the cause.

Motion granted.  