
    White against Eagan.
    Parol testimony may W* admitted to explain, the situation of land, although contrniy If» ttie description iu th<* deed; if a mis» take is apparent from tlifi nature of the tiling itself
    ACTION of trespass, to try title to lands, and for damages, &c.
   The Court,

in this case determined, that parol testimony might be given in evidence, to explain the situation of land, contrary to the face of the deed; if it is evident from the nature of the thing itself, that there is a mistake in the deed, as where north is mentioned for south ¡ or south for north, ei vice versa, &?c. The land in question being described in the deed to bound on Sir yohn Colleton to the north, and one Cox to the south ; whereas, in fact and in truth, it did really bound on Cox to the north, and on Sir yohn Colleton to the smith-..  