CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

All the questions that have been raised, in the discussion of the
merits of this caveat, are therefore resolvable into this one: What
is that degree of accuracy of the description of the land aimed at,
which is deemed necessary in a special warrant to give it a binding
effect? Upon this subject there seem to exist some difficulties
which have not yet been removed, although the question has been
often under the consideration of the Chancellor.

The distinction between a special and a common warrant, as now
understood, and so well established, it is said, was not expressly
and generally recognised until about the year 1750, when warrants
having a location, by the specification of the particular place where
the quantity of land therein called for was to be laid out, were
called special warrants, in contradistinction from common warrants
describing no place; and which, therefore, might be applied any
where.(w) It has been laid down, that the description contained
in a special warrant should suit none but the land contended for;
and should be so full and certain as plainly to point out the inten-
tion. But it is said, that, although the exact lines, limits, or
boundaries, cannot be expected to be set down before the survey
is made, the description may, at least, point out to every inquirer
the general situation of the land. It may at least enable a person
to say of some spot or point that it is comprehended within the
tract affected by the warrant, (x) And further, that there is some rea-
son to doubt whether the rule was not less strict before the revolu-
tion; since it appears, that the special warrants, in the years 1773 and
1774, seldom went further than to state the vacancy to be adjoining
to some particular tract or tracts, either naming them, or the person
or persons in possession of them.(y) In a case where the special

(w) Land Ho. Ass. 84.—(x) Land Ho. Ass. 401.

(y) FOWLER v. GOODWIN.—8th Aprilt 1809.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The proceed-
ings and the grounds of the caveats, as stated in the argument, have been folly
considered, and notwithstanding the several objections made to these certificates, the
Chancellor considers it as a point clear of any doubt, that the caveats cannot be
sustained.

It appears that a special warrant was obtained by Goodwin, and others, on the 23d
of May, 1774, to take up 400 acres of vacant land, stated to be adjoining to the following
tracts of land, or some of them, viz. Nicholas and John, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th,
9th, 10th discoveries, &c. Several certificates, including those now in dispute, were
returned in May, 1776; and patents thereon not having been issued, the present
caveats were entered in September, 1807.

One of the objections stated by the caveator is, that patents were not taken out
within two years, according to the 11th section of the orders and instructions in1733.
The Chancellor is not satisfied of the validity of this objection; nor is he informed