
    Isaac Chase versus Albert D. White.
    Tn an action of ejectment to recover a lot of land, called the “ Gore,” proved to be bounded on the north by a lot belonging to the tenant, the only question to be determined being as to the true original location of the north line of the “ Gore,” the tenant introduced a deed of his lot from his original grantors, who were also the original grantors of the demandant, dated subsequently to that under which the demandant claimed, and introduced testimony tending to prove, that the original location of the north line of the “Gore” was in accordance with his claim. — Held, that the testimony was competent for the consideration of the jury, in connection with the other testimony in the case.
    On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding. This was a writ of entry in which the demandant claimed Gore lot No. 11, in Buckfield, by mesne conveyances from Abijah Buck and Abijah Buck, jr., Ms original grantors, the deed from whom was dated June 15, 1807.
    The tenant disclaimed a portion of the demanded premises. His disclaimer was accepted, and the parties joined issue on the title to the residue of the lot. It was proved that the tenant owned the land on the north side of the Gore lot, and by which the Gore lot was bounded entirely on that side, and the only question to be determined by the jury, was where the true original location of the north line of the Gore was.
    The demandant introduced testimony tending to establish the first boundary of the Gore as claimed by him, but did not prove any other monuments to have existed on the line of the Gore as claimed by him.
    The tenant introduced a deed from the demandant’s original grantors to Sampson Cole, dated March 27,1818, under which, through mesne conveyances, the tenant derived title to the whole or part of his land adjacent to and bounding the Gore on the north, and introduced testimony tending to prove that the original location of the north line of the Gore lot was in accordance with his claim. The presiding Judge instructed the jury that the testimony was competent for their consideration, in connection with the other evidence in the case, in determining where the true original location of the north line of the Gore was, (that being the line in controversy between the parties.)
    The verdict was for the defendant, and the demandant excepted.
    The cause was submitted without argument.
    
      Ludden, for plaintiff.
    
      Walton, for defendant.
   Goodenow, J.

I see no reason why the exceptions should not be overruled and judgment be entered on the verdict.

Tenney, C. J., and Rice, Hathaway, and Gutting, J. J., concurred.  