Case ID: h-j_3/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tiie Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hamblktov.
    A «tv,.vi. from Talbot County Court. This was an action of trespass quarg clausum fregit. The land, upon which the trespass was ail aged to have been committed, vn*j caiii'd Knave Deceived. The plaintiff, (now appellant,) at the trial gave m evidence the certificate and patenf of Knave Deceived, surveyed on the 10th of March 1796 for, and granted to the plaintiff, on the 7th of April 3 797. “lying on the south side of Saint Michael’’s river, ««ml beginning at a small while oak, marked with six notches, standing in the woods at the end ot the 17th or N W course of 73 perches of a tract of land called Fidde.nMii’i Discovery, which oak bears N 77 degrees 15 mina ex E, distant 45 perches from the division post between Daniel Fi Idem,an and John Bolle, and running with Fid-,lemán'a Discovery N E 167 perches, to a tract of land called Elliott's Folly, then with said El-How's Folly reversed 8 25 degrees TV 167i perenes, to the 16th coarse of Fiddenian's Discovery, then therewith 8 TV 23 perches to the end of said Ime, then with the t7th course aforesaid to the first mentioned tree, containing and laid cut for 57 acres.*’ The plaintiff also gave in evidence the several certificate,!-, and patents of the tracts of land called Cambridge, (surveyed the 6th of October 1662, for William Uaniblcton:) Illartingharn Enlarged, (surveyed the 3d of May 1790 for, and granted the 5th of June 1793 to, William Hambletoni) The Meadows, (surveyed the 25tlx of Muy 1778 for Matthew TUghman,) and Elliott's Fully, (surveyed the 26th of November 1685, for Edward Elliott,) in support or illustration of the several locations made on the pints returned in the cause. The defendant then gave in evidence the certificate and patent of the tract ofland called Neglect, also located on the plots, surveyed the 20til of July 1795 for, and patented to William llaniljlet-on, on the 23th of May 1797, “lying on the 8. side of Saint Michael's river, beginning at the end of 200 perches on the S E line of Marling ham Enlarged, being the 2d line of said land, and runs from thence S E 17 perches, till it intersects the N E line of a tract of land called Elliott's Folly, then with said Une N E 481 perches ill! it intersects the first line of a tract ot land «ailed The Meadows, than with said line S 8§ degree** i - ► j j ' * 1 ' „ ) - I l , •l A » ' * ' SO-miiivités W 32 perches, then N N E with the same land 58 perches, to the land called Martingham Enlarged, then with said land N 78 degrees 50 minutes \Y 5¿ perches, then with a straight line to the first beginning, containing seven acrbSi” The defendant also gave in evidence, in support of the location thereof made by him on the plots, the certificate and patent of the tract of land called Fidde» man's Discovery, surveyed on the 4th of December 173S for, and granted on the 5th of August 1742 to, Richard Fiddcman. The plaintiff' then offered evidence to prot-e, that the defendant was the surveyor Who originally locate ed and surveyed the tract called Neglect ¡, for Williwhi Hambleton the patentee thereof; arid for the purpose of proving the original location and survey of that tract, and that it began at the place described bn the plots by the black letter F, and from thence run to the place described on the plots by black letter G, to the tract of land called Elliott's Folly, as located by the plaintiff, and from thence run with Elliott's Polly to the place described on the plots by black letter H, to the tract called The Meadows,. as located by the plaintiff, and from thence, &c. &c. he offered to read in evidence the following wiitten deposition of Edioard N. Hambleton, the defendant, which had been before sworn to and subscribed by him, and taken by the sheriff of Talbot county on the 5th of April 1709, in an action then depending in the county court between William Hambleton, plaintifiy and Samuel Tenant, defendant, viz. The witness summoned and sworn at the request of the defendant, “deposeth and saith, that he the deponent sometime past run out a tract of land called Neglect, but the deponent cannot tell at this time the exact, spot where he began the land called Neglect, but for further information refers to the certificate oh the survey. And the deponent further says, that he cannot recollect what allowance was made oil laying down the tract of land called Martingham Enlarged, and for further information refers to the certificates of said lands called Martingham Enlarged and Neglect, Question — Did you. measure the first line of Neglect, and find that If perches intersected the N E line of Elliott's Folly as you then located -Elliott's Folly? The deponent answers, he did. Question — Did you measure the second line of Neglect along with Elliott's Folly, as you then located Elliott's 
      anti find that 48;]- perches intersected the first line of the land called The Meadoim, as you then located The Meadows? The deponent answers, he did. Question — < Did you measure the third line of Neglect with the first' line of The Meadows, and find it 32 perches to the end of the first line of The JEeadows? The deponent answers, he did. Question — Did you measure the fourth line of Neglect, still with The Meadows, and find it 58 perches to the land called martingham Enlarged? The deponent answers, he did; and that the above answers are intended to correspond with the certificate of Aeglect, as he cannot charge his memory with any of the above questions. Question — Bow did you locate Elliott's Folly when you made this survey called Neglect’, did you lay it down course and distance merely from the first boundary? The deponent answers, he doth not recollect; Question — > "Was you governed by any other boundary but the beginning boundary in laying down Elliott's Folly? The deponent answers, he doth not know the beginning boundary of Elliott's Folly, Question — Was you not shown a boundary of Elliott's Folly? The deponent answers, he was shown a boundary of Elliott's Folly, but fie doth not recollect by whom. Question — Was you directed in what manner to lay down Elliott's Folly by the plaintiff in this cause? The deponent is not certain, but believes he was. Question — Did you run to any more than one boundary when you laid down Elliott's Folly? The deponent cannot recollect, but refers to the certificate of Neglect. Question — Who were your chain-carriers when you made the survey called Neglect? The deponent says Francis Sinclair and James Harrison. Question. — Did you give a tract of land called Fiddeman's Discovery any location at all when you made this survey called Neglect? The deponent answers, not that he recollects. Question— Have you any Icnpwledge of a corner tree, or any other mark of a tract of land called- Cambridge, the first boundary excepted? The answer is, he hath not.” The defendant objected to the reading of this deposition, alleging that it was illegal and incompetent evidence, and that it was in the nature of parol evidence tending to contradict, or substantially vary, the legal operation of the patent of the land called Neglect. The County Court, -{Earle, Cis. J.) sustained the objection, and rejected the. evidence. The plaintiff excepted; .nr,d the verdict and Judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    
      To prove the location and survey of a tract of? land calling to begin at the end ot* cue of fije lines oí suiotliei? tract, «uhl to run to muí intersect other tracts, See* and lint it began at and run to particalar places d-‘scribed on tiie plots, parol evidence of ihe sur® veyor, who oviftt - nally located and surveyed the tract of land, was admired as legal air* competent. If ivrtaxn tract's ofland called for by a junior sur® voy were snrveyed by course and distance w?rn íh¿ nn ov survey was made, ta -n ths grant on such ju* nior uu’vcy oa^ed í.o other lana twain was inaUsd a by SliCh avU'YCy.
    
      The cause was argued before Polk, Nicholson, and Johnson, J.
    
      Bullitt send Goldsborough, for the Appellant,
    said that the question depended on the true location of the lard called Neglect, that there was a latent ambiguity in the grant of that land, and therefore that the parol evidence offered ought to have been received to explain it. They referred to Peake's Evid. 115, 123.
    
      Hammond and Kerr, for the Appellee,
    referred to 3 Woodes, 327, 328. 2 Esp. Dig. 506, 507, 521, 525, 526, 527. Meres, et al. vs. Ansell, et al. 3 Wils. 275. Pow. on Cont. 431, 432, 435. Brown vs. Selwyn, Ca. temp. Talb. 240. Lee vs. Biddis, 1 Dall. Rep. 175. Bond vs. Haas's Ex'rs. 2 Dall. Rep. 133. Clarke vs. Russell, 3 Dall. Rep. 415. Jackson vs. Shearman, 6 Johns. Rep. 19. Spalding's Lessee vs. Reeder, 1 Harr. & M‘Hen. 187. Rich vs. Jackson, 4 Brown's C. C. 514. Land Hold. Ass. 402. Jackson vs. Cator, 5 Ves. 688. Jackson vs. Bowen, 1 Caine's Rep. 358. 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Evidence, (G). Bull. N. P. 296, 297. Finney vs. Finney. 1 Wils. 34. Mease vs. Mease, Cowp. 47. Preston vs. Morceau, 2 W. Blk. Rep. 1249. Butcher vs. Butcher, 4 Bos. & Pull. 115, 116. Lord Irnham vs Child, 1 Brown's Ch. Ca. 93; and Dougherty vs. Denny, 3 Harr. & M‘Hen. 430.
   Tiie Court

were of opinion, that if the different, tracts of land called for by Neglect, were surveyed by course and distance, when that survey was made, that the grant of that tract passed no other land than was included in the survey as so made, and that the perol evidence in relation to the survey ought to have been received.

Judgment reversed, and procedendo awarded.