Case Name: James Keech's Lessee against John Dansey
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1704-05
Citations: 1 Md. 20
Docket Number: Lib. T. L. No. 3. fol. 383
Parties: James Keech’s Lessee against John Dansey.
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: 1
Pages: 20–22

Head Matter:
MAY TERM, 1704.
James Keech’s Lessee against John Dansey.
EJECTMENT for a tract of land called Town Neck, lying in St. Mary’s County. The defendant took defence for a tract called Ascham’s land. On the plots filed in the cause it appears that the plaintiff located the defendant’s tract, which was the elder tract, as binding on the 'south side of a creek, and located his pretensions as binding on. the north side of the same creek, which was located so as to separate the two tracts one from the other. But the defendant located the tract he took defence for in such a manner that, instead of being bounded by the creek, the lines run across the creek, and included the greater part of the plaintiff’s pretensions. The verdict was for the defendant.
The followiiig reasons in arrest of judgment were 'filed by the plaintiff.
First. The second line of the defendant’s land is expressed in the patent to run west up the creek ; whereas the plots returned make it appear that the course west does not run up but across the creek, and thereby runs into the plaintiff’s land, which is the cause of the difference, and notwithstanding the act of Assembly and common reason direct, that the greater certainty is always to be preferred to the less, and that the natural course of the creek is more certain than the artificial course of the compass ; besides the several testimonies that the taker up and the son of Ascham always intended and understood their land to be bounded by the creek, and not by the artificial line ; yet the Jury rejecting law, reason, and the evidence, found for the defendant; that is, that the natural bound should be rejected, and the artificial adopted, so that the defendant is permitted by the verdict to run over the creek and take the plaintiff’s land, which is error.
Second. It was the title of Town Neck land which was in question, and although it plainly appeai-ecl that, by running across the creek a great part of the plaintiff’s land was left out of Ascham’s land, yet the Jury found for the defendant, which implies that the plaintiff has no right to any part of Town Neck land, and is most gross error. For which reasons the plaintiff prays the verdict may be set aside.
Judgment upon the verdict for the defendant.
William Dent0 attorney for plaintiff.
Lib. T. L. No. 3. fol. 383.
TIie act of jam 1699, commonly stiled the Land Law, See Kilty's Landholder’s Assistant, Appendix, p. 1.

Opinion:
" THE Court having adjourned from day to day until " this 18th of October, 1704, do now adjourn until the " last Tuesday of April next; for that the dismal accident " of the Stadt House or Court House fire, which happened " this morning about three or four o'clock, hath so distract- " ed the minds of the several officers of this Court, and " put their business in such confusion, that the Court con- " ceive much inconveniency might attend their longer sit- " ting."