
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1810.
    Alexander Henderson v. Isham Jones.
    A grant °f ^ancb as located within a certain location district, is good, although the land should be found within another location district.
    Special verdict, found in Marlborough district; determined by Smith, J., for defendant. Motion to reverse said judgment. The special verdict states, that the land (this being an action to try titles) in question was granted to the plaintiff in March, 1806 ; but part of the same had been previously granted to Stephen Gibson, in the year 1789, as land lying in Georgetown district; although, in fact, it never lay in the district of Georgetown, but in Cheraw district.
    It was contended, that the grant to Gibson, calling for land in Georgetown district, which was in law known to be a separate location district, and never included any part of Marlborough district, or the old district of Cheraw, could not be admitted or allowed in evidence to establish a title to lands in Marlborough district. And that parol evidence could not be admitted or allowed to locate the land any where out of the location district wherein the same is described to lie by the grant itself. That the location warrant did not authorize a survey of land out of the location district, within which it was issued. Quoted act of assembly of 1734. A grant issued upon a survey in violation of the act of assembly must be regarded as void ; and that the circumstances under which the same may be avoided, are proper for the consideration of Courts of Law.
   But per totam curiam,.

Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion. The judgment of the District Court was right. However improperly or incorrectly the deputy surveyor may have acted, yet, if the land has been granted, the grantee is entitled to the benefit of his grant; at any rate, until it has been cancelled or set aside. The public officers entrusted with issuing grants, should be careful to guard against violations of the laws respecting the granting of vacant lands ; but after the 'grant has passed, and rights have been acquired under it, it cannot be invalidated, or questioned, unless in some proceeding in which that is the direct and sole object. The case of Mounce v. Ingram, established this doctrine. See 1 vol. 55. And parol evidence has been admitted to show where the land lies, by proving the original lines to which the grant refers, or marks mentioned in the plat, attached to the grant. See the case of Perry v. Middle» ton, I vol. 103 and 546.

Motion rejected.  