THE capture, are not sufficiently clear; and that it will be GROTIUS, proper to make an order for further proof, to be furnishSHEAFE, ed by the captors and the Claimants, with respect to all MASTER. the circumstances of the capture. This point appears not to have been made or considered in the Court below.. 1814. ALEXANDER AND OTHERS v. PENDLETON. If the case be THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the clear, a Court district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, as a Court of Equity will of Equity. interpose to quiet the title. A purchaser The case, as stated by MARSHALL, Ch. J. in delivering with notice is the opinion of the Court, was as follows: protected by his vendor's want of notice. possession of This suit was brought in the year 1806, in the Circuit An adversary Court for the county of Alexandria, for the purpose of quieting the title of Nathaniel Pendleton, the Plaintiff in that Court, to 83 acres of land contiguous to the town of Alexandria which have been in his possession, and in tle, constitutes the possession of those under whom he claims, from the a good defence against that year 1732 to the present time. title. A purchaser without notice has a right to sary possession possession of Robert Alexander, being seized of a large tract, on part of which the town of Alexandria now stands, on the join his adver- 17th of January in the year 1731-2, executed to Dade to the osten- Massey, then about to intermarry with his daughter Parsible adversary thenia Alexander, his bond in the penalty of 800l. with his vendor, so a condition that he would convey to his daughter Partheas to give him- nia and her heirs, on demand, four hundred acres of land of the statute lying on Potomac, "beginning on the river side and of limitations. from thence running to his back line, making a long square so as to have the same breadth on the river as on the back line." self the benefit The marriage soon afterwards took effect, and she was put into possession of the land by the following bounds, that is to say: "Beginning at the mouth of Goings gut, on the river Potomac, and extending down the river so as to include four hundred acres of land between the river ALEXANand the back line." DER & OTHERS บ. TON. The back line called for in the patent was a due north course; that by which Robert Alexander then held was PENDLEnorth 6 west. Claims have been since successfully asserted which would vary the back line so as to run north 17 west. The Appellants insist that those who hold under Parthenia shall be compelled to extend to the back line, as now established, and proportionably to contract their line down the river, so that the parallelogram shall still comprize four hundred acres. Pendleton, who is .a. purchaser under Parthenia, insists on being limited on the west by the line north 6 west, which was the back line when the title of Parthenia accrued. In the year 1735, Robert Alexander departed this life, having first made his last will in which he devised as follows: "Item, I give to my daughter Parthenia Massey four hundred acres in Prince William county, according to my bond. Item, I give to my daughter Sarah Alexander, four hundred acres joining Parthenia Massey, the same length on the back line and the same breadth on the river." Parthenia survived her husband, Dade Massey, and intermarried with Townshend Dade. Sarah intermarried with Baldwin Dade, and was put into possession of the land devised to her. John and Gerard Alexander were the only sons of Robert, and were the co-devisees of the bulk of his estate. In April, 1740, John instituted a suit against Gerard for partition; and to this suit Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife, were parties Defendants. A decree of partition was made, directing that the lands of the Dades also should be allotted to them to be held in severalty. Commissioners were appointed to execute this decree, with directions to report their proceedings to the Court. Under this interlocutory decree the land was surveyed by Joseph Berry, and a division made. Four hundred acres were allotted to Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and the same quantity to Baldwin Dade and บ. ALEXAN- Sarah, his wife. This allotment was made on the idea DER that north 6 west was the true back line. But as the & OTHERS Alexanders intended to institute suits for the purpose of recovering lands lying west of the north 6 line, it was PENDLE agreed between all the parties that the partition then made should not be conclusive, but should depend on the suits about to be instituted. In consequence, as is presumed, of this verbal agreement, the survey and proceedings under this interlocutory decree were not returned; and in May, 1741, the suit was dismissed agreed. TON. Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, remained in quiet possession of the four hundred acres devised to Parthenia by her father, according to those boundaries which had been marked out on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line. Sarah Dade died without issue; on which event her land was limited to her two brothers John and Gerard, who entered thereon and continued to hold it according to Berry's survey. John Carlyle claimed the land west of north 6 west; and, in April 1766, commenced an ejectment against Alexander, who appears to have recovered part of the land between north 6 and north 17 west in a previous ejectment against one of his tenants. In May, 1771;& verdict and judgement were rendered in his favor. In the year 1774, Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, instituted a suit against John Alexander for a title to the land mentioned in the bond of Robert Alexander. To this suit John Alexander filed bis answer stating the death of Dade Massey leaving a son by Parthenia, her subsequent marriage with Townshend Dade, and the doubt who was entitled to the land, as the reasons for its not having been previously conveyed. In the same year, Charles Alexander, son and heir of John, filed his answer in which he states the doubt respecting the back line, admits the north 6 west to be the present back line, and prays that, should a more western boundary be at any time established, he and his heirs might be at liberty to vary the boundaries of Parthenia's land so as to conform to such future back line. In 1776, a deed was executed by Charles Alexander ALEXANto Parthenia Dade conveying 400 acres of land according DER to the bond of Robert Alexander: This deed specifies & OTHERS no boundaries and contains no stipulation respecting the v. future change of the back line. It would confirm the PENDLEwill of Robert Alexander, if that will wanted confirma tion. In the year 1779, this suit was dismissed neither party appearing. In May, 1778, Parthenia Dade conveyed this tract of land with no other description of the metes and bounds than was expressed in the bond and will of her father, to William Hartshorne, who took possession of the land and held it according to Berry's survey, which makes north 6 west the back line. William Hartshorne laid off the northern part of the tract from the river to north 6 west in twenty-three lots which he sold to various persons; and then, in May, 1779, conveyed the residue of the land, which includes that in controversy, to William Harman, of Pennsylva nia, by metes and bounds taking north 6 west to be the true back line. In the year 1786, Mordecai Lewis, executor of William Harman, conveyed this land to Elisha Cullen Dick, who in 1796, conveyed eighty-three acres, the land now in dispute, to Henry Lee, who, in June, 1797, conveyed to Baldwin Dade, who, on the 29th day of December, in the year 1801, conveyed to Philip Fitzhugh, who, on the 18th of February, 1802, conveyed to Nathaniel Pendleton. In the same deed Fitzhugh conveys also to Pendleton three acres of land, other part of the tract of 400 acres, with notice that Charles Alexander claims north 17 west as the back line. Previous to the conveyance from Baldwin Dade to Philip Fitzhugh, the said Dade had conveyed the land in controversy to Thomas Swan to secure a debt due to William Hodgson. Swan conveyed to William B. Page, in trust for Hodgson, who conveyed to Hodgson, who, in July, 1803, conveyed to Pendleton. Soon after the decision in favor of Carlyle in May, 1771, Charles Alexander brought an ejectment for the VOL. VIIK 59 TON. v. ALEXAN- same lands, and in 1790, a verdict was given in his fa DER vor, on which a judgment was rendered, which was af& OTHERS firmed on appeal in 1792. In 1796, Charles Alexander instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery in Virginia, PENDLE- for the purpose of altering the boundaries by which the land of Parthenia had theretofore been held, and of laying off that tract so as to extend it to north 17 west, thereby narrowing its breadth where it stretches towards the town of Alexandria, and giving it more length. To this suit, those under whom Pendleton claims, with others were made Defendants. TON. Charles Alexander, departed this life in the year 1806, and the suit has not been revived. Nathaniel Pendleton being about to sell the land in controversy, tendered to Charles Alexander a deed for quicting the title; and, on his refusing to execute it, instituted a suit to compel him so to do. After the death of Charles Alexander this suit was brought against the Defendant, his widow and children. In the Circuit Court a decree was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, from which the Defendants have appealed to this Court. The cause was argued last term, by Swan and JONES, for the Appellants, and by E. I. LEE and C. LEE, for the Appellee. SWANN, for the Appellants. The only question is, whether the long possession according to metes and bounds, gives a good title notwithstanding the claim of Alexander to carry his back line so as to run north 17 degrees west; instead of north 6 degrees west. The bond to convey to Parthenia in 1781-2, calls simply for the back line; R. Alexander's will in 1735, devises the land to her by the same description; and the deed of confirmation from Charles Alexander in 1776, still refers to the back line. Whatever should be the back line of Alexander's tract, was to be the western boundary of Parthenia's 400 acres. In 1740 a suit was |