100 HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.—1 BLAND.

matters must be disposed of; and they have presented the princi-
pal difficulties in the case.

Shall not this resurvey, made by the vendor, at his own expense,
after entering into this contract, enure, in all respects to the benefit
of the vendee ! Shall the claim of the vendee for an allowance for
deficiency be sustained to the full amount, notwithstanding it has
been made up, in part, by contiguous vacancy included under the
warrant of resurvey ? and, shall the vendor be now called on to
refund, to the amount of the deficiency, not so made up by con-
tiguous vacancy, after the purchase money has been paid? The
answers to these questions must be deduced from the peculiar
rules of our law relative to real estate. It does not appear, that
these questions have ever before been presented for judicial in-
vestigation: the Chancellor is, therefore, without the aid of pre-
cedent.

In this case the vendor, by his bond, dated the 23d July , 1791,
binds himself to convey to the vendee " the tracts or parcels of
land called Font's Delight, and The Resurvey on Beauty, contain-
ing four hundred and twenty-four and an half acres of land, more
or less." By a resurvey made in April, 1792, these tracts were
found to contain together no more than 384 acres; but, by that re-
survey, eighteen acres of contiguous vacancy were included,
making, in all, 402 acres in this resurveyed tract which was called
"The Reunion," leaving a deficiency of 22 1/2 acres, including the
vacancy: and of 40 1/2 acres, if that addition is to be rejected. The
claim for an allowance for deficiency was first made by the supple-
mental bill, filed on the 15th of August, 1821; and, it is there made
and designated by a reference to this return on the warrant of re-
survey executed by and at the expense of the vendor.

* Where lands are sold by metes and bounds, or in a body,
109 by a designated name, number, or lot, without reference to
quantity, in such cases, according to the English authorities and
our own, no allowance is made for any deficiency; unless on the
ground of fraud, or misrepresentation. And where lands are sold
by measurement, or by the acre, no mere question as to the defi-
ciency can arise. But where, as in this instance, the specified
tract is stated to contain so many acres, more or less, difficulties
often arise as to the claim of an allowance for deficiency. The
precise meaning of the words "more or less," has been fixed by
no decisions; but the better opinion seems to be, that they should
be restricted to a reasonable allowance for small errors in surveys,
and for variations in instruments. Something, too, will depend
on the proportion the deficiency bears to the whole tract. It seems
to be difficult to fix a positive rule. Townshend v. Stangroom, 6
Ves, 340; Winch v. Winchester, 1 Ves. & Bea. 375; 1 Pow. Cont.
375; Land Hold. Assis. 253; Nelson v. Matthews, 2 Hen. & Mun.