
    *Kershaw & Gillman vs. R. Starnes. The same " M. Latham. The same “ S. Smith. The same “ G. W. Davis. The same “ C. Timberlake. The same “ J Willson.
    A surveyor acting under a rule of Court cannot be allowed for his representation of separate tracts, on his plat, when they are no part of the land claimed by the parties, and are merely put down on the plat as boundaries or evidences of the identity of the location. He is only entitled to pay for one plat. But where the plaintiffs claim under two grants, and both are represented on the same paper, and also a grant or grants conflicting with those upon which the defendants rely, for each of these the surveyor may be allowed to charge.
    Where there are several cases, all depending upon the same location, the surveyor is only entitled to pay for one plat.
    Before Evans, J., at York, Fall Term, 1840.
    Judge’s order made on circuit.
    These were actions of trespass to try title. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs in the two first cases, and for the defendants in the other cases.
    Both parties have appealed from the clerk’s taxation of costs, and I am to decide whether the taxation allowed by the clerk is right. I will consider, first, the defendants’ exceptions to the clerk’s taxation.
    The first ground sustains the general rule that costs are allowed only for services actually rendered. The commission issued in the case of Starnes. It can be taxed only in that case.
    The second exception is also sustained. It appears from the clerk’s report that the surveyor, Campbell, was employed only seventeen days in making the survey in all the cases. The fee bill of 1791 says, the surveyor shall be allowed, whilst on the survey, fourteen shillings per day. The surveyor, although appointed by the Court, is the surveyor of the party. The party for whom he acts is bound to pay him at the rate of fourteen shillings per day whilst employed in his service, and if he succeed in the case may tax as his costs such sum as he has paid or is liable to pay to his surveyor. Campbell could not charge the plaintiffs more than three dollars per day for every day he was on the survey. In ^11386 cascs ⅛*3 plaintiff '' recovered against two of these defendants, and is entitled to tax his surveyor’s costs against them. But as the survey was made for both cases, he cannot tax the whole amount against each, but must tax it against one, or half against each. This disposes of the third and fourth grounds.
    5. The surveyor is allowed for a plat of the land in dispute. On this plat he should represent every thing necessary to explain it. The representations of surrounding lands are but explanations or representations of what is necessary to the understanding of the dispute between the parties. I am of opinion, therefore, the exception must be sustained. The surveyor is entitled to only one plat in each case.
    
      I think the Clerk should have allowed the charge for the chain carriers. It was an incidental and necessary expense.
    Second. Plaintiffs’ Exceptions. — I am of opinion the first objection - must be overruled. The fee bill of 1827 allows the attorney for a commission or cross interrogatories eight dollars. And if, as I understand, each defendant put in cross interrogatories, he is entitled to his costs. The plaintiffs’ second, third and fourth exceptions relate to the surveyor’s cost, and must be governed by the same rales as the defendants’.
    Ordered, that the clerk do reform his taxation according to the principles stated above.
    The plaintiffs appeal from, and move to reverse the decision of his Honor, Judge Evans, on the following grounds :
    1. Because in sustaining the defendants’ second exception, he erred in not allowing the surveyor his per diem pay in each case in which the plaintiffs succeeded.
    3. Because he should have allowed the surveyor ten shillings, not only for the general plat in the case, but also for each representation of surrounding lands, which were the subject of grants or conveyances, they being necessary to explain the plaintiffs’ location.
    
      
       5 Stat. 154.
    
    
      
      
         6 Stat. 333. An.
      
    
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

This is a question of costs, and must be decided by the fee bill. It is said the plaintiffs’ land could only be located by the surrounding tracts, and that therefore the location and delineation of these on the plat was indispensable to the understanding of the plaintiffs’ claim : accordingly, the surveyor has represented and laid down on his plat *all these surrounding tracts, as well as those under which the parties claimed. For each of these tracts of land the surveyor claims to be allowed ten shillings, and the question submitted to this Court is, whether such allowance is consistent with the fee bill. The words of the fee bill of 1791 are, “for making out a fair plat, certifying, signing and returning the same, ten shillings ” The rule of Court in this, as in other cases, I presume, required the surveyor to survey the land in dispute between the parties, and to return a plat thereof to the Court. The plat which he is required to make is a representation of the disputed land. The boundaries, whether they be marked trees, water courses, or surrounding tracts of land, are but component parts of the plat he is required to make. They are but the evidences of the identity of the land claimed ; and I can see no more reason for allowing additional compensation where the boundary is an adjoining survey, than where it is a river or creek, or any other natural or artificial boundary. It is his duty to search out the lines of the land, and when he has done so and fixed the location, to return a plat thereof to the Court. For searching for the lines he is allowed three dollars a day, and for a plat of the land he is allowed ten shillings. Every thing beyond the representation of the land in dispute is inserted as the evidences of identity. If the boundary be identified by marked trees, he puts them down on the plat; if by a river, he does the same ; and if by the adjoining survey, he represents that on his plat; but these are put down only as evidences of the identity and true location of the land. They are component parts of the plat, but all put together make but a plat of the land. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the surveyor cannot be allowed for those separate tracts represented on the plat, which was no part of the land claimed by the parties, and put down on the plat only as boundaries or evidences of identity. In these cases the plaintiffs claim under two grants. These are both represented on the same paper, and also a grant or grants conflicting with those upon which the defendants rely. For each of these I am of opinion the surveyof may be allowed to charge. Such seems to have been the opinion of the Court in the case of Sturgenecker vs. Marsh, (1 Bail. Rep. 592.) Upon reconsideration, I think the circuit decision made by myself, allowing the surveyor ten shillings as for one plat in each of the cases, was *wrong ; and the taxation of the cost must be reformed by the Clerk accordingly.

Allston, for the motion. Williams, contra.

The motion is dismissed as to the other ground.

The whole Court concurred.  