It is a universal rule that course and distance yield to natural
and ascertained objects. But where these objects are wanting and
the course and distance cannot be reconciled, there is no universal
rule that obliges us to prefer the one to the other.
Cases may exist in which the one or the other may be preferred
according to the circumstances.
In a case of doubtful construction, the claim of the party in
actual possession ought to be maintained, especially where it has
been upheld by the decisions of the state tribunals.
This was an ejectment brought in the court below, in which the
lessor of the plaintiff claimed title under a patent, describing
the survey as
"beginning at an ash in the middle of a line of Glenn's land,
and with it north 20 degrees, east 800 poles, crossing three
branches to a hoop wood and sugar tree corner to Moffat's land, and
with a line thereof north 70 degrees, west 100 poles, crossing the
creek to a sugar tree south 33 degrees, west 820 poles, crossing
three forks of the creek to two sugar trees, south 70 degrees, east
300 poles, to the beginning."
The question arising upon the construction of this patent is
stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 19 U. S. 581
MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Whatever might be our opinion (and we wish to be understood as
expressing none) if the question in this case were entirely new, it
cannot be affirmed that there has been such a clear mistake of
construction as that justice and law require us to depart from the
decision of the local tribunals. The question here is whether the
third and fourth lines of this patent (following the order of the
lines as they are given in the patent) are to be continued upon the
courses called for by the patent until they intersect, or whether
the fourth line is to be extended from the beginning to the
distance called for by
Page 19 U. S. 582
the patent, and then the closing line is to be drawn so as to
strike the termination of the second and fourth lines at the patent
distances. In the former case, the fourth line will be longer than
the distance called for by the patent; in the latter, the third
line will vary from the course called for by the patent. The
counsel have stated that the question resolves itself into this --
whether the course shall yield to distance or distance to the
course. It may be laid down as an universal rule that course and
distance yield to natural and ascertained objects. But where these
are wanting and the course and distance cannot be reconciled, there
is no universal rule that obliges us to prefer the one or the
other. Cases may exist in which the one or the other may be
preferred upon a minute examination of all the circumstances. In
the present case, whichever construction is adopted, the plaintiffs
will hold a larger portion of land than their patent calls for. We
must consider that the construction of the patent is somewhat
doubtful. That it is susceptible of two constructions, each of
which has some reasons to support it. If it be doubtful, it would
seem reasonable not to press the broadest construction against a
party who is now in actual possession under a perfectly good legal
title. That possession ought not to be ousted without a clear title
in the other party, especially where it has been upheld by the
state tribunals. This very case, between the same parties, has been
already adjudicated in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, and that
court, upon full deliberation, decided
Page 19 U. S. 583
in favor of the defendant.
* It would be a
great mischief for the same title to be in perpetual litigation
from the conflict of opinion between the courts of the state and
the federal courts, and we therefore, acquiesce in the opinion of
the Court of Appeals upon the ground that the point is one of local
law, has been fully considered in that court, and is a construction
which cannot be pronounced unreasonable or founded in clear
mistake.
Judgment affirmed.
*
Preston's Heirs v. Bowmar, 2 Bibb. 493.