HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON.

Where lands are sold by metes and bounds, or in a body, 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 measure-
ment, or by the acre, no mere question as to the deficiency 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 rea-
sonable 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.(g) But it is considered, that under all circum-
stances, this is a case in which there is a fair ground for presenting
such a claim for deficiency; and therefore it must be investigated
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 described
shall contain the number of acres specified. The remuneration for
deficiency in quantity is not, however, pecuniary, (h) or made by

(g) 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 164; Duval v. Ross, 2 Mun. 290.

MURDOCH 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 828| acres, more or less; that soon after the sale, it was discov-
ered, that Walter Beall, who had conveyed to Samuel Beall, had retained fifty acres,
for which he had made an allowance to the purchaser; but, that the purchaser had
caused the land to be surveyed, 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.

17th February, 1804.—HANSON, Chancellor.—As the whole of Exchange was
intended 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 an
allowance for the said fifty acres; because the deficiency 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 Chancellor 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
possibly be entitled to an allowance for the expense to which he has voluntarily put
himself to shew the deficiency.

(h) Land Hol. Assis. 481.