Case ID: del-cas_1/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bassett, G. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM McCAY’S LESSEE v. WILLIAM HINDS.
    Court of Common Pleas.
    April 27, 1797.
    
      Wilson’s Red Book, 162.
    
    
      Peery and Wilson for plaintiff. Miller for defendant.
    Evidence. Plaintiff had a right to a moiety of 167 acres more or less, which was in fact 113 acres. He sold to Carlisle, from whom defendant claimed 83% acres by neat course and distance, which called for the bounds of the whole moiety, but the courses and distances would not include 83%. The whole question was therefore on proof of boundaries.
   Bassett, G. J.

(Charge.) You have heard that where boundaries cannot be proved the party must be confined by the courses and distances. This is certainly right; but, if the jury are satisfied it ran to any particular distance never so far, it will go to that spot, let it be ever so far, or ever so wide of the course given. The sole question is whether the deed from plaintiff extended to the place contended for by defendant, for both parties derive their titles from the same source.

Verdict for defendant.