¶1 I think the Judge erred in not extending the estoppel to Blount, for the case states, that Swain and the Defendant, under Swain’s pretended title, entered upon the land. Now it appears to me, that if Swain is estopped from setting up title, in himself, that Blount, who acted under that title, or to use the words of the case, the pretended title of Swain, is equally estopped; and that a title by estoppel, will, as to them estopped, as well as a title against the world, draw to it the possession. Which constructive possession, according to our notions, supports the action of trespass.
¶2 Per Curiam. — Let the judgment below be reversed, and a new trial granted.