
    
      Pender vs. Jones.
    PJECTMENT. The defendant, under a deed from ids father, toot possession twenty-five years ago, of lands then included in Pollock’s patent, and has continued that possession t wy since. Pollock was an infant till September liTvJO ; butvnthhi three years from that time, he went over pari of the lands included in his said patent, but not then in dispute, claiming the whose, and threatening to sue, unless those settled upon the patented lands, would admit his title and put chase from his?;. The settlers with the defendant, appointed agen.s to pure!.:sc, and did purchase ; and defendant purchased pa? t of the lands he was settled on, and, the plaintiff the residue. This was in 1'/95, and soon afterwards, the plaintiff enclosed r part of the land'* in dispute, and kept them enclosed, and used thoBS ÜU just before the corametic.ciuent of this action*.
    
      The plaintiff’n coun?*-" 'oníended that lie had gained tule trader his deed and posr.> s»..v.u
    The; defendant’s couxcH icsrwadeil, that i'ollotk’s er.iry «pon pari; of che natontud hedfo vá the whole la him j auJ u no!, that his claim made known fo the ncighbothood #f die disputed, lands, and the oi lúa title, avoided the pcsse-jokm and its effects.
   ’johmion, Judge.

-An eniry to divest an estate claim rd by another, must be on the bads claimed by him ; and i: ttaro be several possessors on patented lands, the entry mast be on vdch parcel possessed.

Ai to the claim, I will not now umdeyisLe to deride how it must be made : that point may be reserved. Co::';tiual c.'ci.i'. ¡siwt be made as near the land as the tfoimaní dase go, airi <b vests the possession for one year and day. Jierc it is coním-U c'J, that claim in our act of limitations, is of a different impo.i, and is productive of different effects, in as much as it vests ¡he possession and preserves the title for reven ycaio more. A.-.ivi 5.iso it is contended, that all which is meant bv it, is a making it known to the possessor, by some notorious a x or tic tlarS '-ioM, that he, the claimant, is the owner of the lana settled on, T\:r~ hsps it may be so.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and a new trial was rcr. for. And after argument, the Judge said, «here ha« beca sev. n year’s pos vraffion ‘m this case, and that too under a deed ; ano >5 mskes a clear title for the defendant, unless his possession was overturned by the true owner within three years ?it<w coming to age, by envy er claim. Now, an entry so have this effect, must bra an entry upon the very lands possessed by the defendant, fie said nothing of the claim, bet ordered a new trial.  