
    Marmaduke Coats v. Daniel Mathews.
    On a question of location, the course and distance of one line extended ten chains beyond a creek, and its parallel line also extended five chains beyond the creek, which creek (or river) formed a semicircle, with the circumference turned from the centre of the tract in dispute ; the plat represented the whole of the creek in its course, as included in the tract. Upon this evidence, the jury found a verdict to the following effect, and it was supported by the Court, viz.: That the line should be closed by running a straight line from one point to the other, until it encountered the river, and then to follow that until it arrived at where such straight line would cross the river, and then to pursue it until it arrived at the other point.
    Location is a question of evidence, and cannot be reduced to fixed and definite rules.
    Course and distance must yield to actual marks, whether natural or artificial; but in the absence of these, course and distance must determine the location.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Edgefield, October, 1819.'
    This was an action ot' trespass, to try titles to a tract of land situated on Little Saluda river, on which a verdict was found for the defendant.
    *The case depended on the location of the defendant's grant. In the plat, annexed to the original grant, the river is represented as running >- iuu in nearly a straight line within, and immediately along, the southern boundary, which is a straight line. Upon the resurvey, all the lines on the north side of the river were found distinctly marked. Those on the south, it was evident, from the plat itself, had never been run, and were what are usually called open lines. At the point where the western or upper line strikes the river, the corner is distant five chains on the south of the river, and where the'eastern or lower line strikes the river, ten chains south of the river is the distance to the corner ; and in the original plat, the survey is closed by a straight line from those two points. But upon the resurvey it was found that, by a sudden and considerable southwardly bend of the river, a straight line from those two points would intersect the river very near them, and cut off a considerable body of valuable low grounds lying on the north side of the river ; and the question was, whether this line was to be so closed, or whether the river should be regarded as the boundary from the points where it was intersected by the straight line ? If the former, then the present motion for a new trial ought to prevail; but if the latter, the verdict was right. It was also contended, on the part of the defendant, that the lines crossing the river to the south, should be extended as far as to include the whole bend of the river by a straight line.
    
      
      StarJc, for the motion. Caldwell, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Joiinson, J.

Location is necessarily a question of evidence, and cannot therefore ever be reduced to any fixed or definite rules; and it is only by the application of general principles to it, that its weight or influence can be determined. Among those applicable to this subject, there is none perhaps better established or more generally received, than that course and distance must yield to actual marks, whether they are natural *1011 0:L' artifieial. * The reason appears tome obvious. Bad instru-J ments, and the innumerable errors which every day’s experience developes, would ever render it uncertain. And it is equally clear, that, in the absence of marks, course and distance must from necessity, determine the location.

The correctness of the verdict in this case, will, I think, be clearly demonstrated, by the application of these principles to the facts. In the original plat, the river is represented as running almost in a direct line immediately within the southern boundary of the land. If, then, it be true, that course and distance must yield to marks, it follows, that you cannot run that line across the river. But it was said in the argument, in the Court below, that the river ought not to control the course, because it was not itself represented as the boundary. This argument accedes the position, that if it had, the course would yield, and prove, I think, rather too much ; for this strange absurdity would follow, viz,: In the event of its being called for, as an external boundary, you would be bound to pursue all its windings, however ridiculous and absurd, and it is to be.wholly disregarded as any evidence of location, if it be represented as running within the land.

But this case may, I think, be determined on another principle. If we are to judge from the grant and the plat annexed to it of the intention of the parties to it, if indeed the State can be supposed to have any mind upon the subject, all the land within the lines north of the river, ivas intended to be granted ; for it is so represented in the plat; and no one will doubt, that the intention of the parties, collected from the grant itself, is conclusive.

I have before remarked, that course and distance must determine the location in the absence of actual marks. This principle is, I think, applicable to the position taken on the part of the defendant, that the two lines crossing the river should be extended so far southwardly as to include the bend of the river by a straight line from their terminations. It will be *1021 *reG0llected, that all the lines south of the river are open lines ; -J there is nothing, then, on either of these lines to carry you beyond the given distance, and it is not until you turn your course to close those two points, that you meet with any obstruction, you then encounter the river, to which, as a mark, your course must yield, and turns you aside until you arrive at your true course again.

The motion must therefore be discharged.

Coloook, InTott, Gantt and Richakdson, concurred.

1 Strob. 146; 2 McM. 48; 9 Rich. 152: 6 Rich. 83. 
      
       9 Rich. 159.
     
      
       6 Rich. 90.
     