102 HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.—1 BLAND.

In these respects this general, but implied warranty in every
patent grant from the State, must be regarded as a peculiar, and
beneficial incident, and privilege beginning, and associated with
the legal title of the original grantee, and following that legal title
from him to all others, who claim under him, until it has been
separated, and complete satisfaction has been obtained by a holder
of the legal title. Land Hoi. Assis. 153.

In this case, these tracts of land were deficient in quantity, and
this incidental claim against the State, and the privilege of in-
cluding contiguous vacancy, subsisted in full force at the time the
contract was entered into between these parties. The vendor
stipulated to make a good and legal title to these tracts; tacitly,
but clearly, including all incidents and privileges associated with
the legal title. The vendor cannot be allowed to withhold any,
then subsisting, beneficial incident to the legal title; nor can the
vendee be allowed to relieve himself from any burthen or re-
sponsibility by rejecting any incident to the title he contracted to
receive.

It is one of the chief purposes of a warrant of resurvey, issuing
from the land office, to ascertain the existence and extent of this
implied warranty; and, where a deficiency exists, to make it up
by taking in contiguous vacancy. It is true, that under such a
warrant, the party may take in any contiguous vacancy, not only
* to the amount of the deficiency in the original tract, but
111 to a much greater extent. Whether the vendor can be per-
mitted, considerably, or in any degree, to enlarge the tract of land
by a resurvey after the contract of sale is entered into, and can
compel the purchaser to take and pay for such addition, is another
and a very different question from that under consideration: and
one which it will not now be necessary to determine.

But, in this case, the vendor, after ascertaining the deficiency,
has supplied it, only in part, by the addition of contiguous va-
cancy. This mode of making up the deficiency subsisted as an in-
cident to the legal title at the time the contract was entered into
by these parties. The vendee, therefore, cannot be now permitted
to reject this incident, and claim a deduction for these acres of
vacancy, leaving the vendor to hold them as his separate estate.
If the vendor were not allowed, in this way, to make up the de-
ficiency, then the vendee would obtain the original tract together
with, or divested of this privilege of including these eighteen
acres of contiguous vacancy. In the first case, he might obtain
them, by means of his legal title, without paying for them; or on
the other hand, the vendor might have cast upon him a small in-
convenient scrap of land, which, from its situation, would be alike
unsaleable and unprofitable, unless in connexion with one or other
of the immediately adjacent tracts. But these eighteen acres
have been obtained from the State by the vendor as the holder of