CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND. 303

derived entirely from those of England with only such modifica-
tions here as the circumstances of the country required.

But by an Act of Assembly touching the taking up of land,
passed during the Government of the first Lord Proprietary, it was
* among other things declared, that every one claiming title
to any land in certain to be holden of his lordship, may de- 324
mand his claim to be entered upon record, and such entry shall
bar all ensuing grants of the same land till the claim be tried.
1642, ch. 51; Land Ho. Ass. 248. This legislative provision may
probably have been the suggestion from which special warrants
arose; and it is also not unlikely, that it gave rise to a practice,
which was introduced not long after, of designating the land in-
tended to be surveyed by a caveat in the office, and the marking
of trees as a still more conclusive location and appropriation of the
land until it could be actually surveyed. But this mode of desig-
nating lands by caveat endured but a short time, and is now en-
tirely obsolete. Land Ho. Ass. 215. A caveat against the emana-
tion of a patent, it will be recollected, has always been regarded
as, in fact, the commencement of a judicial controversy; whereas
this caveat in the office was nothing more than a warning to all
persons not to take up the lands therein described; it was in truth
no more than a special entry of the party's claim upon record, like
that made in a special warrant, or in a surveyor's book; and had
no analogy whatever to a caveat in Chancery. It may also be well

warrant, however distant they may be from the land described in the spe-
cial warrant.

It appears then to the Chancellor, that the Judge's direction to exclude
the vacancy not contiguous to the land, mentioned in the special warrant, is
wrong; and that Coleston is entitled to a patent for every part of the land,
included as vacancy in his certificate, when certificates of the several parts
shall be returned, and

It is accordingly adjudged and ordered, that the transcript of the record
in this case be returned to the aforesaid Judge, and that he be and is hereby
directed to proceed, and to direct proceedings for carrying into effect his de-
cision for returning as many separate certificates of the vacancy, surveyed
for the defendant, James Coleston. as there appear to be distinct pieces of
vacancy, in the certificate of "Guardian's Neglect."

The Chancellor's decision, or rather his declaration of the rules of the
Land Office is simply as follows:—whatever may be done by a common way-
rant, may be affected by a special warrant of vacant cultivation. It makes
no difference whether or not the survey under a special warrant includes
part of the land designated by the special warrant. In fact the important
difference between the two warrants is, that the special warrant, before sur-
vey, affects the land accurately described in it. The common warrant
affects no land, until it is surveyed, or located with the surveyor. When a
certificate has returned two or more distinct tracts, each having a certain
beginning, the surveyor is directed to return, several distinct certificates on
each of which a patent is to be obtained.

As to costs, they are left to the discretion of the Judge.