Newman v. Young's Lessee ex rel. Shafer

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal was taken by the defendants. In support of the action, the plaintiff gave .in evidence a certificate of the surveyor made in execution of a special warrant of re-survey, and a patent issued thereon to Amos Young, the plaintiff’s lessor, for the tract of land described in the nar., called “ Slack Water,” and then offered evidence that the same was timber land lying along the Potomac river, between the river and cultivated lands, from which it was separated by a fence, and that twenty years before the trial (or about the year 1843,) it was unenclosed. The warrant of re-survey was issued on the 10th of November, 1845; and the patent to Young, on the 4th of January, 1847..

The defence was under the plea of “ not guilty.” The defendants having given in evidence a patent for a ■ tract of land called “ Chew’s Farm,” issued to Samuel Chew, on the 23d day of June, 1736, containing 5,000 acres; and also sundry mesne conveyances, showing that the title to parcels of “ Chew’s Farm ” had devolved upon the defendants, offered in connexion therewith, to prove by the parol testimony of surveyors and others, that the parcel of land sued for called “ Slack Water,” was embraced within the lines of the original patent of “ Chew’s Farm,” and also within the lines of the several mesne conveyances under which the defendants claimed. ⁴¹⁹ The rejection of this evidence by the Court below forms the subject of the first, second, and fourth bills of exception. The reason for its rejection, as stated in the bills of exception, was “ that there were no plats or locations in the canse,” and we think this ruling of the Circuit Court was correct. The declaration having particularly set out the claim of the plaintiif for the tract of land described in the patent made to Amos Young ; its location as shown thereby, and by the certificate and return of the surveyor, was admitted by the pleading to be correct. Tongue vs. Nutwell, 17 Md., 229 ; Addison vs. Hack, 2 Gill, 225 .

Under the law and practice in this State, when parties set up adverse claims to land under different titles, the only mode of pointing out to the jury the land actually embraced within the lines and boundaries described in patents, deeds, or other title papers, is by plats and locations; by that means alone could there be furnished to the jury any certain evidence upon which they could form a verdict. The parol evidence offered in the first, second and fourth exceptions to prove that the tract called “ Slack Water,” was actually embraced within the lines of the patent of “ Chew’s Farm,” or within the lines of the several mesne conveyances, under which the defendants claimed, was incompetent and inadmissible for that purpose. Mundell vs. Perry, 2 G. & J., 193 ; Budd vs. Brooke, 3 Gill, 198 ; Clement’s Lessee vs. Ruckle, 9 Gill, 326 ; Clary vs. Kimmell, 18 Md., 246 . In Clary vs. Kimmell, it* was decided that the laws and practice regulating surveys and locations, were not changed in this respect by the Act of 1852, ch. 117, (Code, Art. 75, sec. 53.) .

We concur also with the Circuit Court in the opinion that the evidence that the land in controversy had been known and called “ Galloway’s land,” as set out in the third exception, was inadmissible, the same not being relevant to