CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING. 329

bind the vacancy to a certain extent;" but it is not said how
fer.(z)

In the various instances put of describing the general situation;
of referring to some spot or point comprehended by the tract; or
to the particular line, or corner, or extremity of the tract to which
the vacancy is contiguous, and of such a description being binding
to a certain extent; it is not said, nor is it perceived to what extent
the binding effect of the description would be allowed to go; nor
even if that could be settled, is it perceived how the fact of such
obligatory extent is to be ascertained and proved. It is certain
that parol proof is wholly inadmissible for any such purpose.(a)
It has been solemnly declared, that a warrant for one hundred
acres, contiguous to a tract, of which the outlines are altogether
twenty miles in length, cannot be thought to give an exclusive
right to survey any one hundred acres contiguous to that extensive
tract.(6) And it has been laid down with great attention as a rule,
that if an angle of one tract runs up to or touches an angle, or even
a side of another tract, there is no contiguity between that other
tract and the land contained within the two lines forming the
angle, (c)

In judicial proceedings involving the titles to land, the term
location occurs very frequently; and its meaning varies with the
subject spoken of. The word is used in speaking of a point or
place of beginning, of a line, and of a whole tract. But in these
cases, the meaning and the ideas conveyed are different. When
the location of a point is the subject spoken of, an indivisible part
of space, a spot, comprehending no superficial extent, is alluded to.

it makes no difference whether or not the survey under a special warrant includes
part of the land designated by the special warrant. It is well known that a common
warrant binds or affects the land at the time of its location with the surveyor, and a
fortiori, it must bind at the time of the actual surveys which, in these cases, was
many years before the date of the caveator's warrant.

The application of the above principles to the matter in dispute, being sufficient
for its decision, it will not be necessary to remark on some other grounds of defence
which were urged by the counsel for Goodwin, But, with regard to the opinion of
Mr. Callahan, the late register, concerning the certificates now caveated, as stated in
the depositions of Oliver Cromwell, it is thought proper to declare explicitly, that
such evidence of the opinions of that officer tian have no possible influence in any
case now to be decided.

It is adjudged and ordered that the aforesaid caveats be dismissed with coats.

(*) Mortland v. Smith, MS. 19th April, 1815.—(a) Beafty v. Orendorf, Land Ho.
Ass. 402.—(&) Beatty v. Orendorf, Land Ho. Ass. 401.—(c) Whitford v. Jones
Land Ho. Ass. 413.

42