Houck v. Loveall

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. If the defendant below had counter-located the location, by the plaintiff, of “ Brown’s First Attempt,” the ruling of the court would have been correct, for the reasons assigned in the exception. But we think there was no controversy as to the true locatipn of the patent for that tract, and that it ought to have been received in evidence. The certificate accompanying the plat does not verify the papers called explanations, purporting to contain the defendant’s locations and counter-locations.

These are separate from the plat, not referred to in the certificate, nor signed by the sheriff and surveyor. They appear to be unfinished certificates of surveys and locations, made subsequently to those on the plat, and cannot., in their ⁶⁹ present, form, be treated as possessing tbe attributes ascribed to them by the appellee’s counsel. We are not to be understood as intimating that explanations must always be certified and signed, when placed on another paper than the plat. They may be referred to, and returned with the certificate and plat, and when so identified will be properly considered as part of the proceedings under the warrant.

We have carefully examined the plats and explanations in the case of Mundell vs. Perry, 2 Gill & Johns., 193, and find that some of the remarks made in reference to their incompleteness apply with equal force to the present record. As the record will be remanded, it is proper to add a few words us to locations of this kind. It is well settled that calls are to be gratified in disregard of course and distance, and that other tracts, when called for, are as imperative as boundaries. This is abundantly shown and explained in the Maryland decisions cited by the counsel for the appellee.

But in such cases it is not always necessary to locate on the