Case Name: Davis et al. Lessee, vs. Batty
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1802-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: Davis et al. Lessee, vs. Batty.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 264–282

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1802.
Davis et al. Lessee, vs. Batty.
The commissioners appointed tinder the land law of 1715, ch. 45, acted judicially, and their judgment is conclusive between the parties, unless reversed on an appeal; and as between strangers the proceedings are evidence in the same manner that hearsay is admissible to prove the bounds of land.
The deposition of a witness taken under aland commission legally executed, cannot be read in evidence unless there is proof of the death oí the witness
Where a grant describes the tract of land as lying on the W. side of Chesapeake hay, and on the W. side of S. river of that hay, beginning at a marked oak standing near a marsh of the said river, called Selby's Marsh, bounding on the E. with a line drawn N. W. and byN. trom the said oak, &e. (sundry courses having calls) •unto the land of J W. and then with the said land, containing, &c. Held by the court of appeals to be ambiguous, and thetefore left to the determination of the jury—lhereby dissenting from the decision añade by the general court in this case.
The allowance for tlie attendance of a witness, who was subpenaed, but not sworn at the trial* is not to be taxed in the costs, unless directed by the court, on application^
EjectmAnt for a tract of land called Brown’s- • Discovery, lying in Anne-Arundel county. Defence on warrant, and plots returned.
1. The plaintiff at the trial produced and read in evidence to the jury, a certificate of survey and grant of the tract of land called Brown’s Discovery, the former dated the 19th of July 1762, and the latter dated the 9th of June 1764, founded upon a special warrant granted to William Brown for 50 acres of vacant land; and proved that the said land is located on the plots in this cause, beginning at the figure t. He also read in evidence a deed of bargain'and sale, dated the 19th of May 1769, from Samuel Chase, and William Brown, the patentee, to Robert Davis, for the said land, and offered evidence that Robert Davis died intestate, leaving Robert Payne Davis his heir at law, who became seised of the said land; and that B„ F. Davis also died intestate in the year 1793, leaving the lessors of the plaintiff his heirs at law; and that since the commencement of the present action, Frances and James, two of the said lessors of the plaintiff, have died. He also offered in evidence a certificate of survey of a tract of land called Selby’s Marsh, dated the 25th of September 1652, hereafter set forth.
The defendant on his part offered in evidence the certificate and grant of Selby’s Marsh, the first dated the 25th of September 1652, and the last the 26th of April 1658; also the original record of the proceedings of certain commissioners on the petition of Joshua Mayo and Charles Stewart, dated the 7th of June 1717, lodged in the office of the clerk of Anne-Arundel county court, and by him brought into court, and which is as follows: “Joshua Mayo and .Charles: Stexvarl’s petition. To the gentlemen commissioners of Anne-Arundel county appointed for the ascertaining the bounds of .land, and deciding the differences between parties thereon, &e. The humble petition of Joshua Mayo and Charles Stewart humbly -sheweth, that your petitioners are seised, in fee simple, of a tract of land lying on the S. side of S. river, originally granted to Edmund Towning of the county aforesaid, in the bounds of which your petitioners conceive some irregularities, and is molested by a certain Heaekiah Linsicum from occupying, (as they conceive,) their own land; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray you’l appoint a certain time whereon to meet on the premises, in order to ascertain the bounds thereof, and decide the difference now depending; and your petitioners in duty bound shall ever pray, &c* March 13, 1716, this petition granted.
‘‘June 7, 1717. At a meeting held of the commissioners appointed for ascertaining the bounds of land, on the petition of Joshua Mayo and Charles Stewart, complainants, against IJcxckiah Linsicum, defendant. Commissioners present, Thomas Larkin,” &c. “Gentlemen, and they proceeded on the premises of the .above petition. William Brewer, aged about fifty** three years, being sworn, dcposeth as follows: That his brother, John Brewer, and Nathaniel Hethcoat, told him, that the tree we are now at, being a gum, was a bounded tree of Edward Sarson, and that to his knowledge it hath been deemed a bounded tree of Edward Sarson this forty years,” &c» &c< [Here follow óther depositions.] “June 7, 1717. Pursuant to the directions of the commissioners appointed for ascertaining the. ancient metes and bounds ofland in Anne-Arun-del county, upon the petition of Joshua Mayo and Charles Stewart, complainants, against Ileaekiah Lin-sicmn, defendant, upon the bounds of a tract of land formerly laid out for Edward ToWning of the said county, lying in S. river, now in the tenure of the said Joshua and Charles, I, Thomas Stockett, junior, surveyor appointed by the said commissioners, began at a bounded gum tree standing at the head of a branch, which Was proved by the evidence of William Brewer and Thomas Harris, to be the original bounded gum mentioned in the original certificate of survey of the said land on the TV. thence S. 57i° Easterly 67 perches, to the line of Selby’s Marsh, and bounding on the S. with the said land by a line drawn SE. and by S. 150 perches, to the spot where the original bounded tree of Selby’s Marsh was adjudged to stand by the said commissioners, which included the land in dispute, and was ascertained for the ancient metes and bounds of the said complainants’ lands.
Per me T. Stoekett, Jr.”
[Here follows the plot.];
“Mayo and Stewart, cornpl. vs. Linsicum, defendant. The whole cost is 1258lbs. tobacco. Judgment for the complainant for 12lbs. tobacco damages, done the land in dispute, and 629lbs. tobacco, part of the cost of suit for their vexation? the other 629lbs. tobacco, part of the cost abovesaid,. we find reasonable to be paid by the complainants, the resurvey upon the premises being in other respects of great service to the complainants; and further, that the complainants shall hold the land from Pythev’s Creek, at the end of the TV SW. course, by the following courses: S. 57f E. 67 perches, to the line of Selby's Marsh, thence SE. and by S- 150 perches, with the said land, to the spot where the beginning tree of Selby's Marsh was ad- • judged to stand, at which place was set a cedar post by order of the commissioners, thence bounding on the water to the beginning, as per the plot thereof doth appear,
Certain exprek sions in a grant as to the running of the land, considered by the court of appeals to be ambiguous, and iherefoi e left to jury to decide— thereby disagreeing with the general court in the decision hevti Buttle,
Signed per order of the commissioners,
F. Warman, Clk.”
The defendant also produced and read to the court, -an act of assembly passed at dpi'il session 1715, clu 45, entitled, “An act for ascertaining the bounds of lands within this province” .
To the reading of which proceedings and plot to the jury, the plaintiff by his counsel objected,
Ridgely, Shaaff and Johnson, for the plaintiff.
Martin, (Attorney General,) and Key, for the defendant.
Chase, Ch. J. . The court are of opinion, that the commissioners under the„act of 1715, ch. 45, acted judicially; and as between the parties, their judgment and the plot would be conclusive, unless reversed on an appeal made in the manner and within the time prescribed by that act; and as between other persons, the proceedings are admissible as evidence on the same ground that hearsay is admissible to prove the hounds of land.
The court are therefore of opinion, that the record of the proceedings and plot are legal and proper evidence in this cause, and admit the same to be read to the jury. The plaintiff excepted.
2. The plaintiff offered in evidence the certificate and patent <>f the tract o.f land called Brown’s Discovery, as before mentioned, and the plots and explanations returned in this cause, f¿o prove his title to the said land, which it is admitted is truly located on the Plots-
The defendant offered evidence that he had truly located on the said plots Mtadt’s creek, South river, Selby’s bay, and Copling’s creek. He also offered in evidence the certificate and grant of the tract of land called Selby’s Marsh, before mentioned, which describes said land as “lying on the W. side of Chesapeake bay, and on the W. side of South river of that bay, beginning at a marked oak standing near a marsh of the said river, called Selby Marsh, bounding on the E. with a line drawn KW. and by N. from the said, oak, for the length of 150 perches, on the N. with a line drawn W. from tiie end of the former line for the length of 170 perches, to a marked pockicory tree, on the W. with a line drawn S. and by W. from the said pockicory for the length of 150 perches to a marked oak, on the S. with s¡ line drawn ESE. from the said oak for the length of 170 perches unto the land of John Watkins and Jeremy Haxeling, and then with the said land, containing and now laid out for 490 acres more or less.” The defendant also offered evidence to prove, that the beginning of the tract of land called Selby’s Marsh, (at figures 34 on the plots returned in this cause,) was placed on and by the side of the same waters, viz. Meade’s creek, South river, Selby’s bay and Copling’s creek, which the fifth line of Selby’s Marsh struck at the point 37 (being at the end of a line from the termination of the fourth course expressed in the grant,) according to the de?» fendant’s location on the plots.
The plaintiff then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the defendant’s location on the plots in this cause of Selby’s Marsh, was not according to the certificate and grant of the said land; and that if the jury were of opinion from, the evidence, that the plaintiff' had made title to the land called Brown’s Discovery, he was entitled to recover in this action.
(a) The beginning of the fourth line of Hazelmg’s land.
(b) The fourth boundary of Hazeling’s land, and the edge of Meade’s creek,
(c) The end of the second line of Hazeling’s land..
See the act at large, 2 Harr. & M’Hen. Appendix XIII.
Duvall and Done, J, concurring.

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
. The court are of opinion, that the grant of Selby's Marsh is truly located on the plots in this cause by the defendant, if the jury find Meade's creek, South river, Selby's bay, and Copling's creek, are truly located on the said plots, and the beginning of the said tract of land called Selby's Marsh is placed on and by the side of the same waters which the fifth line of Selby's - Marsh .strikes at the point designated by figures 37, according to the defendant's location. That all the land lying on the west side of Chesapeake bay, and on the west side of the South river of that bay, is included within the lines and bounds of the grant of Selby's Marsh.
Done, J. concurring-