Pender v. Jones. ( 1803 )

’johmion, Judge.

-An eniry to divest an estate claim rd by another, must be on the bads claimed by him ; and i: ttaro be several possessors on patented lands, the entry mast be on vdch parcel possessed.

Ai to the claim, I will not now umdeyisLe to deride how it must be made : that point may be reserved. Co::';tiual c.'ci.i'. ¡siwt be made as near the land as the tfoimaní dase go, airi <b vests the possession for one year and day. Jierc it is coním-U c'J, that claim in our act of limitations, is of a different impo.i, and is productive of different effects, in as much as it vests ¡he possession and preserves the title for reven ycaio more. A.-.ivi 5.iso it is contended, that all which is meant bv it, is a making it known to the possessor, by some notorious a x or tic tlarS '-ioM, that he, the claimant, is the owner of the lana settled on, T\:r~ hsps it may be so.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and a new trial was rcr. for. And after argument, the Judge said, «here ha« beca sev. n year’s pos vraffion ‘m this case, and that too under a deed ; ano >5 mskes a clear title for the defendant, unless his possession was overturned by the true owner within three years ?it<w coming to age, by envy er claim. Now, an entry so have this effect, must bra an entry upon the very lands possessed by the defendant, fie said nothing of the claim, bet ordered a new trial.