CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

side of the Court of Chancery, to prevent the emanation of a
patent, are, and always have been substantially the same in Mary-
land as in England; insomuch so as to leave little room to doubt,
that the law and the forms of proceeding of Maryland, in relation
to the making out of grants, and the proceeding by caveat, were
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

The judge of the Eastern Shore land office in effect has said, that Coleston could,
under his warrant, survey no land which did not correspond to the description or
location of his warrant. But it has been here long since settled, that a special war-
rant shall be allowed to do every thing, which a common warrant might do. It
appears, that a common warrant might have affected any part of the vacancy com-
prehended in Coleston's certificate, that is to say, that no other warrant affected it;
and therefore it is rightly comprehended in Coleston's certificate. The Chancellor
is glad of an opportunity of informing the judge of the Eastern Shore land office of
an important point, of which the said judge could not reasonably be supposed to be
apprized; and which whether it be right or wrong the present Chancellor did not
decide. It was in fact decided under the former government.

Under a common warrant any uncultivated vacant land, not before surveyed, or
located, may be affected. A special warrant of vacant cultivation is intended to affect
a particular vacancy described in the warrant. If it accurately describes the vacancy,
it effectually binds it, against all subsequent warrants or locations. But nothing is
better established than this,—that a special warrant of vacant cultivation may aban-
don its first intention and may be used to affect any lands, which may be affected by
a common 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
Coieston 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 pro-
ceed, and to direct proceedings for carrying into effect his decision for returning as
many separate certificates of the vacancy, surveyed for the defendant, James Cole-
ston, as there appear to be distinct pieces of vacancy, in the certificate of " Guar-
dian'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 warrant, 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 spe-
cial warrant. In feet the important difference between the two warrants is, that the
special warrant, before survey, affects the land accurately described in it. The com-
mon warrant affects no land, until it is surveyed, or located with the surveyer. 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.