HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.—1 BLAND. 101

164; Duval v. Ross, 2 Mun. 290.(c) But it is considered, that under
all circumstances, this is a case in which there is a fair ground for
presenting such a claim for deficiency; and therefore it must be in-
vestigated and decided.

It has been long settled, that every patent grant for land, from
the State to an individual, binds the State to warrant and assure
to the grantee, and those who claim under him, that the tract de-
scribed shall contain the number of acres specified. The remuner-
ation for deficiency is not, however, pecuniary, Land Hol. Assis.
481, or made by * refunding the purchase money; but it is
made in kind, in other land warrants, or by an authority to
take other vacant lands anywhere to the amount of the deficiency.
Land Hol. Assis. 473. This warranty, or implied covenant, passes
with the legal title of the grantee to his assignee, and all those
who hold the legal title under him; and is never extinguished
until, after the amount of the deficiency having been ascertained,
the legal holder has been satisfied by obtaining other land war-
rants, or has actually included other vacant land equal in quantity
to the deficiency. Any legal holder, in order to ascertain the
existence and extent of this claim against the State, may, of right,
obtain from the land office a warrant of resurvey; and take in any
vacant land immediately contiguous to the original tract. The
deficiency, thus ascertained, is directly set off, in the land office,
against the vacancy included; and, if the vacancy amounts to as
much, or to more than the deficiency, the claim against the State
is fully satisfied; but if less, then it is only satisfied in part. Land
Hol. Assis. 319, 468, 480, &c.

(c) MUKDOCK v. BEALL.—This was a creditor's bill, filed on the 7th of May,
1799, to have the real estate of Samuel Beall, deceased, sold to pay his debts.
Sale decreed and made. The trustee reported, that he had sold the tract of
land called Exchange, supposed to contain 828i acres, more or less: that
soon after the sale, it was discovered, that Walter Beall, who had conveyed
to Samuel Beall, had retained fifty acres, for which he had made an allow-
ance to the purchaser; but, that the purchaser had caused the land to be sur-
veyed, and had discovered, that, in the residue, there was a deficiency of
nine and a quarter acres, for which he claimed an allowance. Upon these
facts the case was submitted.

HANSON, C., 17th February, 1804.—As the whole of Exchange was in-
tended to be sold, and afterwards a discovery was made, that fifty acres
thereof had been retained by Walter Beall, it was proper in the trustee to
make the purchaser aD allowance for the said fifty acres; because the defi-
ciency was not of quantity, but in Exchange there was a defect of title.
But, as to the nine and a quarter acres deficiency in quantity, the Chancel-
lor is clearly of opinion, that the purchaser is not entitled to an allowance
for that deficiency; and not being entitled to that allowance, he cannot pos-
sibly be entitled to an allowance for the expense to which he has voluntarily-
put himself to shew the deficiency.