
    Webster vs. Saunders, Terret. of Duley.
    0na scirefadat he pleaded that b Sana.&cfEví fór the ¿n<i m <¿«1 Ooni’n’to s ck-amf a pS 5-the land, ami built ?t,cr«>n and lived J};™1!,,. ^ctaredT inK^ntrdtheianl ««for the land to dean* fo* 7 fvi o were admisible \hatewvmilnotek-
    Affeal from Harford County Court. A writ of scire facias ¡s&ued on the 7th of April 1807, on a judgment recovered in that court in March 1801, by the plaintiff, (now appellant) against James Duley. The sheriff returned that he had made known to the defendant (the appellee,) as terretenant of a tract of land called William?s Ridge, The defendant pleaded that Duley was not seized at the time of the rendition of the. judgment, or ever after. The plaintiff replied that Duley was seized, &e. of the said land, and also of a tract of land called Coleraine, of which the defendant is terretenant, &c. Issue joined.
    At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence the judgment the writ of scire facias mentioned; also a patent to one Richardson in the year 1764, for the tract of land called Coleraine, mentioned in the pleadings; and also read evidence a deed from Duley to Robert Saunders, the defendant, dated the 16th of June 1803, “for part of a tract land called Williams’ Ridge, conveyed to him the said Duley by N. Horner, containing 100 perches,_ also ten acres of land, being part of a tract called Coleraine, which the said Duley bought of Samuel Grooms Osborn,'’ &c. He also proved by witnesses sworn in the cause, Duley cleared the said part of said land, built a dwelling-house thereon, and lived upon the same 24 or 25 years. The defendant then by the same witnesses, offered to prove by the declarations of Duley, that he had rented said land of Samuel Groome Osborn, in said deed mentioned, when he first took possession of it, before it was cleared. 'Fo the giving of which evidence the plaintiff objected. But the Court, [ Bland A J.] overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence to be given to the jury. The defendant further proved by the same witnesses, that Duley had paid rent for said land to said Osborn before it was cleared, for seven or eight years. The defendant then prayed the court to direct, the jury, that the. plaintiff was not entitled to recover; to which the. plaintiff objected. But the court were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and so directed the jury. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict arid judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J. by
    
      Kell for the Appellant, and by
    
      Winder for the Appellee.
   SUBGNJSST AT3?IRME»»  