454 MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

tions of his petition, in which he stated that the defendant had
discontinued the erection of the fence until the 8th instant, when

defendant's illustrations; and that the said surveyor hath declared to the
complainant, that he will not do otherwise than return a separate plot for
each party.

The Chancellor thinks proper to declare it to have been his expectation,
in passing the said order, that only one plot and certificate should be
returned to this Court, on which plot should be laid down any lands
which either party should instruct him to lay down. It hath always been
the practice for surveyors, on similar occasions, to lay down lands for both
parties on the same plot; and it appears to the Chancellor, that unless the
lands laid down, by the directions of each party, shall be contained in one
plot, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, that the matter in dis-
pute can be illustrated.

It is therefore Ordered, that the surveyor of Baltimore do lay down and
return to this Court, one plot and certificate containing all the land which
both or either of the parties shall direct him to lay down for illustration of
the matter in dispute. But nothing herein contained is intended to restrain
the surveyor from gratifying either of the parties who shall think proper to
direct him to make an additional plot. It is further Ordered, at the instance
of the complainant, that the decision of this cause be postponed to the
twentieth instant, and that it shall be beard on that day; provided a copy of
this order be served on the defendant or his solicitor, at any time before the
tenth instant.

Under this order a further survey was made, the lands laid down for illus-
tration as required, and a plot returned; after which the case was set down
for bearing, and brought before the Court.

HANSON, C., 5th February. 1709.—The said cause being set down for hear-
ing, and being debated by the counsel in writing, the bill, answer, exhibits,
depositions, and all other proceedings, were by the Chancellor read and
examined, and the written arguments of the counsel on each side were by
him read and considered.

The complainant bad three objects proposed by the bill as it stands
amended—first, to have an agreement for the division of the land enforced;
secondly, to have an account of the profits of a ferry supposed to be on the
land in the bill mentioned, conformably to the said agreement, and to be
secured in the receipt of one-half thereof in future; and, thirdly, to have
the suppression of another ferry, set up near the common ferry by the de-
fendant.

It seems that the defendant considered it of importance, to prove that the
ferry-house, &c., are not, as was supposed at the time of the agreement, on
the tract of land which was to be divided. He therefore obtained an order
for laying down lands for illustration. But if the Chancellor conceived it
of consequence to have the precise running of the land ascertained, he cer-
tainly could not, without violating the well known established principles of
this Court, undertake to decide on the location, but would refer it to a jury.
He cannot, therefore, otherwise than regret, that the parties have incurred
an unnecessary expense. It appears that they were in possession of the
ferry, landing, &c. as part of the tract of land devised to them by their
father; that they agreed upon a division of the land as possessed; and that
they have since held, according to the agreement. This Court cannot then