Beard's Lessee v. Maccubbin

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called West Pudding” bon, lying in Anne Arundel County, containing 340 acres. The defendant took defence for 50 acres of West Puddington. At the trial of the cause two bills of exceptions Were taken. 1. The plaintiff in order to prove his title to West Pad dington, according to his pretensions as laid down on the plots returned to the Court, upon the defendant’s defence taken upon the return of a warrant of resurvey, proved that the great grandfather of the lessor of the plaintiff, was possessed, eighty years ago, of all the tract of land in question, as the same was laid down by the plaintiff on the plot $ that the land descended, by regular descent, to the father of the plaintiff sixty years ago, who became thereof seised as heir at law, and continued seised till fifty years ago, when Charles Tilley entered into fifty acres, part of the said tract of land, for which the defendant took his defence; that after the entry of Charles Tilley, the father of the lessor of the plaintiff, continued seised of the residue of the said tract, and died seised' thereof, whereupon the same de ¹⁸⁰ scended to the lessor of the plaintiff, being the heir at law ^'ls father.

And the lessor of the plaintiff being thereof seised in the year 1741, a certain Samuel Burgess released {deed indented unto him, “ all the right, title, interest, “ claim and demand of him the said Samuel, of, in and to 44 all and singular that tract or parcel of land called West 44 Puddington, lying in Anne Arundel County, containing 44 340 acres, and now being in the actual possession of the 44 said Richard BeardP The plaintiff also proved that at the time the release bears date, the said Samuel Burgess had the whole right to all the tract of land, as heir at law to the original patentee. Whereupon the defendant offered in evidence to the Jury, that Charles Tilley who entered into the fifty acres, died possessed of them, and that at his death, a certain Thomas Tilley, as his son and heir at law, entered into the same and was thereof possessed, and being so possessed, on the 7th of November, 1734, conveyed to William Chapman, who conveyed to the defendant, who was possessed of the land till the bringing of the ejectment; but that the said fifty acres were not laid down by the defendant in the plot, according to the metes and bounds contained in the deeds, as any part of the defendant’s. pretensions, nor were the metes and bounds proved to the Jury, nor was it in evidence to the Jury, that the fifty acres of land, or any part thereof mentioned in the deeds, were any part of the defendant’s pretensions as laid down on the plot. Thereupon the defendant prayed the Court would direct the Jury, that if they should be of opinion that the defendant proved, that the fifty acres was so possessed by Charles and Thomas Tilley, as aforesaid,