Case Name: James Calhoun and Philip Rogers's Lessee against Philip Hall
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1790-05
Citations: 2 Md. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Calhoun and Philip Rogers’s Lessee against Philip Hall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 2
Pages: 416–418

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1790.
James Calhoun and Philip Rogers’s Lessee against Philip Hall.
EJECTMENT, for lots numbered 548, and 549. in Howard’s Addition to Baltimore town.
By the bill of exceptions taken at the trial, it appears that the plaintiff, to make out his title to the lands in question, produced and read in evidence the grant of Lunn’s Lot, dated the 20th July, 1673, in which Lunn’s Lot ie described as “ lying in Baltimore County, on the north side of Patapsco River, and on a branch called the north-west branch, beginning at a bounded hickory standing on the west side of the falls of the north-west branch, and in the; line of the land of Thomas Pert and Robert Benjor, called Salisbury Plain, and running with the line of the said land N. W. and by N. 38 perches, to a bounded hickory, in the line of the said land, then S. W. 165 perches to abounded red oak, then S. 40 perches, then W. N. W. 45 perches, to a bounded hickory by the head of a branch, then S. 125 perches to a bounded red oak, then W. and by S. 20 perches, then S. and by E. 40 perches, then S. E. 80 perches to a bounded Spanish oak, then S. 60 perches to a bound ed white oak, in the line of the land of John Howard, called Timber Neck, then by the said land E. S. E. 74 perchet to a bounded white oak of the said Howard’s land, then S. E. 120 perches to a bounded red oak, standing in a bite of the N. W. branch, thence bounding on the said branch, lying up N. 50 perches to a bounded red oak, then N. N. W. 38 perches, then W. N. W. 100 perches, then. N. and by W. 50 perches to a locust marked with four notches, then N. N. E. 45 perches to a bounded red oak in the line of the land of Thomas Cole, then W. 75 perches to a bounded oak of the said Cole's land, then by the said land, N. N. E. 275 perches to another bounded oak, then E. 65 perches to the falls, then bounding on the said falls, to the first bounded tree.” And produced evidence to support his location of the same land, on the plots- returned in this cause, especially of the bounded red oak, represented on the plots (see the plot annexed to the case of Helms v. Hoxoard., at October term, 1784) at the letter B. called for at the end of the line from a locust, marked with four notches, and also of a bounded oak called for at the end of the W. 75 perch line from the said red oak, which second oak is represented in the said plots by the letter C.
The defendant laid down for illustration on the said plots, the tract of land called Cole's Harbour, which he located on the said plots, and the first line thereof from the letter A. to the figures 98, the second line to the figures 99, then to 100, &c. and read the grant of the same in evidence, which describes the land as follows : “ Cole's Harbour, lying on the north side of Patapcco River, and on the north side of the N. W. branch, beginning at a bounded white oak, being the westernmost bounds of the lands laid out for Alexander Mounlney, and running W. to the mouth of a small gut, and over the said gut, and bounding on the said N. W. branch for the length of 320 perches, then N, N. E. 275 perches, then E. 320 perches, bounded on the E. by a line drawn S. S. W. to the first bounded tree, containing 550 acres,” dated the 17th November, 1668. And the defendant by his counsel insisted, that, if the Jury believed the defendant’s location of Cole's Harbour just, the W. 75 perch line of Lunn's Lot must run with, and be bounded by, the first line of Cole's Harbour.

Opinion:
But the Court of of opinion, and directed the Jury, that in rsase the said red oak and the other oak were proved to their sat # 1 tisfaction to have stood as represented and alleged by the plaintiff, that then the course should be from the one to the other of them, without regarding the distance or reference to Cole's Harbour; yet the Court were of opinion, and declared to the Jury, that if the defendant's said location of Cole's Harbour was true, that then the grant of Lunn's Lol did not pass any land included therein.
(Johnson, Ch. J. and Goldsboeoucic. J.)
Cooke, for the plaintiff.
Martin, (Attorney-General,) for the defendant.