ground that the caveat of Peter and the caveat of Chapline
stand on the same principles; the chancellor thinks proper to
make some remarks by way of appendix to the aforegoing
opinion.
He has said that in this case there was no proof of the
former runnings of " Well done": his meaning perhaps, was
not comprehended: It was, that nothing which could be
received as evidence had been offered. It is to be remembered
that, on the day first appointed for hearing the caveat, the
certificate and plat of a survey of all the lands laid down at
the request of the parties, by a deputy of the county
surveyor, was produced. The lands were laid down according to
the present running, and likewise with an allowance, for
variation, of 2½ degrees. The caveator relied on the second
laying down, whereby it appeared, that almost the whole of the
lands in dispute were comprehended within the lines of " Well
done." But the chancellor having in no case made an
allowance for variation without proof of original or former
runnings of some one or more of the lines, and there being no
proof whatever of the original, or former, runnings of " Well
done," the caveat would have then been dismissed, had not
the caveator made oath that he had reason to believe, and did
believe, he should be able to establish the original or former
runnings by proof. On this affidavit the decision was
postponed from autumn to the following spring.
It had appeared, as before said, from the certificate and plat
of the surveyor, that no rate of allowance for variation would
make the lines of " Well done" correspond with the lines of
those tracts which it was alledged to run with, so as to include
the land in dispute. The surveyor was examined by the
chancellor, and declared that he had revised his work, and
was satisfied that it was free from error. Now, to establish
actual former runnings by depositions it was necessary to have
the lands again laid down in presence of witnesses, who
might depose as to certain spots in the plat. This might have
been done under the original order for laying down; by the
surveyor of the county; or if any valid objections had been
offered against the county surveyor, the chancellor, (as he
has done in similar cases,) would have appointed some other
person, obnoxious to neither party. But the caveator,
without applying for such an appointment, thought proper to have
the lands laid down, platted, and certified by Charles
Beatty, without the consent of George Scott, who would not
attend either the survey or the taking of depositions relative
to spots in the plat, and objected against the plat as evidence.
It was accordingly rejected, and the depositions which were
taken merely to establish the work were of course of no
efficacy. Matters then remained on the same footing on which
|