
    Davis’s Lessee vs. Davis’s Heirs.
    Where the facts offered inevi-deriíd by the plaintiff were not sufficient a&fl Iegvti evidence to warrant «he jury in findirg tímt a person, tinder whom the pkintiff claimed, died seized of the land ibr which the ¡J'ctnsc-nt wasl ronig-ht, in opposition io 60 year, pos-esdon of th*‘ defendant
    The strongo-t presumption ofa t>oml title, oeing* m favour of the defendant
    Appeal from a judgment of the General Court, rendered ia an action of ejectment brought by the appellant. The declaration contained a demise for a tract of land tailed Bremerton, containing 400 acres, and one for a tract called Linhasn’s Search, containing 38 acres, both lying in Jbme.-Jlrvndsl county. There was also a demise for an undivided moiety of the same land?, omitting the «quantity of acres contained in each tract. The defendant, (the ancestor of the appellees,) took general defence aiid issue was joined. The plaintiff, at the trial at May term 1805, read in evidence a grant dated the 7ih of September 1659, to John Brewer, fora tract of land called (Bremerton, formerly surveyed for William. Pyiher, lying . : • • on the west side of Chesapeake bay, on the west side of the South river, &c. containing 250 acres. He ajso read certain enfries from the rent rolls; by one of them it appeared that a tract of land called Pythcrlon, was surveyed on the 20th of Juno 1652, for William Pyther, lj ing on the west side of South river, containing 250 acres, anil that it was in the possession of James Saunders, for Par-hall's' orphans. By another entry it appeared, that the tract called ■Pytherton, surveyed as above mentioned, was granted to John Brewer on the 7th of September 1659, and called Bremerton, and that it was in the possession of Robert Davis. By another entry it was stated, that, the tract called Bremerton was resurveyed On the 9tli of November 1704, for Joseph Bremer, and contained 460 acres, and that 'the. following alienations had taken place, viz. “250 acres. Robert Davis from William Davis and William Peacock, 12th of September, 1744. 100 acres. Solomon •Weeden and wife from John Gresham, 2d of June 1744. 100 acres; John Flams from Joseph Williarris, 42th of January 1747. 130 acres. James Ai«ccubbin from Ferdinando Brewer, 12th of October 1747.’5 He also read the grant for Liuhnnvs Search, issued to John Linham on the 12th of June 1688, and containing S8 acres. Also a deed from William Peaco¿It and William Davis to Robert Davis, dated the 12th of September 1744, for Bremerton and Linham s Search. — < He then proved by John Welch, aged 76 years, that when he the witness was a boy in the year 1738, he ivas at the house of Robert Davis, who was then married to the defendant 
      , and lived upon and possessed (he lands for which this suit is brought; that Davis always, after his Warriage with the defendant, and until his death, lived on the land and possessed the same, and after his death his wife, the defendant, lived upon and possessed the same down to this time, and still does. That he never knew or heard that any person, except Robert Davis and his wife; possessed the land, or any part of it. from the year 1738 down to this time. That Sarah Davis, the defendant, had two sisters who, together with Sarah, were the daughters of Daniel Paine; Sarah was the eldest, married to Robert Davis as above; Frances, the second, married William Peacock, who lived with her some years, and died leaving feat' a widow; that she remained a widow two or three years, and married the deponent's brother, \VUh whom she lived two or three years, and died about the year 1750 or 1751, without issue. That Elizabeth, the third daughter, remained single several years after he first knew the family in 1738, afterwards married William Davis, brother of the above mentioned Robert Davis, by whom she liad four children, one of them, the eldest, father of the lessor of ilia plaintiff in this cause; that she dietl before her husband, but when he does not recollect. That: he knew nothing of the title under which Robert, Davis and his; wife, the defendant, held the lands for which this suit is brought, but he liad often heard that Sarah Davis, and her husband, lived on her father^ plantation, and when Frances above named, died, she expressed a wish to be buried alongside of her father, and was carried to Robert Davis's plantation, the lauds for which this suit is brought, and there buried; that Frances Peacock, above named, wheii she married the brother of the deponent, was more than twenty-one years of age. The plaintiff then offered in evidence, by cross examining William Brewer, a witness produced and Sworn by the defendant, that he the witness was aged about 73 years; that he had been acquainted with the three daughters of Dániel Paine above named, ever since he was A years old; that Paine had two other daughters, Priscilla, who married and left no issue now living, the other Jinn who died young and unmarried. That he understood Elizabeth was the youngest of the five daughters; that he had often heard his father say* that Daniel Paine was ari Englishman, who got the laud in question by his wife; that the four daughters were co-heirs, and got the land by inheritance from their mother; that he understood that Frances and Elizabeth lived in Calvert eeunty with a Mrs. Wither son, a relation, till Sarah Davis, her sister, married, when that happened he frequently saw Elizabeth the youngest sister at Robert Davis's, who lived upon the land, and believes she lived sometimes with her sister Davis, and sometimes with her sister Peacock, till she Elizabeth married William Davis. The plaintiff then read certain entries from the parish registers for Ml Hallows Parish, viz. itMury, the daughter of James, and Sary Parnall his wife, was born the 9th day of April 1697, in the parish of Ml Hallows, and baptized- tiie 25tb . day of July Í698. Priscilla, daughter of Daniel ami 'Mary Pane, was born June 1, 1714. Mary, daughter of-Daniel and Mary Pane, was born July 29, 1717. Sarahs daughter of Darnel and Mary Pane, was born May 24, 1720. Frances, daughter of Daniel and Mary Pane, was born August 21, 1722.” The plaintiff also proved, that the lands in question are situated in All Hallows Parish, lie also proved (hat Elizabeth, above named, who married William Davis, died about 12 of Í4 years ago, .leaving four children, Daniel her eldest s'on, William, Robert and Marys that William Davis, her husband! died soon after, about 10 or 12 years ago; that Daniels the son, died in the. life-time of his father, leaving seven children, now alive, of which the lessor of the plaintiff is the eldest. The defendant then read to the court a patent granted to John Brewer on the 16th of February 1659, for 400 acres of land, called tiBrcwerslon, lying on the west side of Chesapeake bay, and on the west side of a river .in the said bay, called Road River,” ike. She also read to the ¿ourt a patent to Joseph Brewer for 460 acres of land, ¿ailed Brewcrston, dated the 20th of March 1710. This' was a resurvey of the last above mentioned tract, devised by John Brewer to his two sons, William and Johns that John', the son,- devised to Joseph his son. She' also read an entry in the rent rolls concerning the said lands, viz. ^Brewerston, patented to John Brewer the 16th day of February Í659; lying in Anne-Amndel county, on the' west side of Road River,' and containing 4ÓG acres. On the 20th of March 1710; apaíeñt issued to Joseph Brewer for 260 acres of land, lying in Anne-Anindel county, being a‘ resurvey on míe moiety of a tract called Brewcrston, originally granted to John Brewer for 400 acres'.” She then' produced a witness, William Breiccr,- aged about 73 years, who being duly Sworn; deposed, in addition to what has been before stated, that ever since he was six years old he Was well acquainted with Robert Davis, and his wife the defendant; that when he first knew them they lived upon the lands for which this suit is brought, and after the marriage of Willi can Davis and Elizabeth Paine, before stated, they, Robert Davis, and Sarah his wife, and no other person whatever, possessed th'e same, and that they continued soto possess the lands ever after,-until Robert Dec- . pk.died, and that after he died,- his- wife, the defendantscGíitiuüed to do so till this time, and now doe?, and that be the witness had lived all his life, and still lives, adjoining the lands for which this suit is brought. The plaintiff' then prayed the opinion of the court, and thqir direction to the jury, that if they are of opinion from the evidence, that Daniel Payne and Mary Payne died seized of the lands mentioned in the declaration, and find the facts stated by the plaintiff1 to be true, yet although they should also be of opinion that the facts stated by the defendant are true, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an undivided interest in the lands in the declaration mentioned»,
    
      .Key and Johnson, for the Plaintiff.
    
      Mason, for the Defendant,
    cited Esp. 459, anti Gilb, L. E. 103, 104.
    The cause was argued before Tilgiiman, Buchanan* Nicholson, and Gantt, J. by
    
      Johnson, (Attorney-General,) for the Appellant;
    and by
    
      Martin, Ridgely and T. Buchanan, for the Appellees,
    
      
      
        j She afterwards died, and her heirs were made parties,
    
   Chase, Ch. J.

The facts and circumstances disclosed in evidence are not sufficient for the jury to presume a title in the heirs of Parnell, or a deed to Parnell, against the defendant, with sixty years possession. The entries on. the rent roll should show a correspondent title. The strongest presumption in thisjease, of a good title, is in favour of the defendant.

The court are of opinion, that the facts stated by tho plaintiff, although the jury should find them to be truc, are not sufficient and legal evidence to warrant the jury in finding that Daniel Payne and Mary Payne were seized of the lands, and died seized thereof, in opposition to the facts stated by the defendant, if the jury should find them to be true. Tim court therefore reíase to give the direction prayed. The plaintiff- excepted; and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff” appealed to this court.

At a former term the death of Sarah Davis, the then appellee, was suggested, and her heirs, the now appellees*, were permitted to appear, &c«

judgment Ai'Enan^n.,  