¶1 after stating the case: The grant under which the iffaintiff claims was declared invalid .on the facts appearing in the record, upon the former appeal in this action (Anderson v. Meadows, 159 N. C., 404), and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover any of the land outside of the Woodard deed upon a connected chain of title from the State.
¶2 She must then rely upon proof of title by adverse possession, with or without color.
¶3*403 If she relies upon adverse possession alone, ber 'action must fail, because ber actual possession has not extended beyond tbe "Woodard deed, and title acquired -by adverse possession, without color, is confined to tbe land occupied. Malone Eeal Prop., 280.
¶4 It is true that some of tbe witnesses speak of entering into possession of Grant 2596, but tbe Woodard tract is within.tbe bounds of tbe grant, and when tbe evidence is considered as a whole, it is evident they referred to possession of tbe Woodard land, and it is so treated in tbe brief of appellant.
¶5 Tbe last position left open to tbe plaintiff is that tbe will of Jacob Sbope, which is tbe only paper title under which she claims, is color of title, and that ber possession of tbe Woodard land extends to the boundaries of ber color; but this contention cannot be maintained, for tbe reason that tbe description of tbe land devised does not appear in the record, and there is no evidence that tbe land in tbe will extends beyond tbe Woodard deed.
¶6 There is also no evidence of a claim b'y tbe plaintiff beyond tbe Woodard deed, and adverse possession does not extend beyond the claim, although this may fall short of tbe lines of a deed, under which one is in' possession. Haddock v. Leary, 148 N. C., 382.
¶7 It also appears inferentially that tbe defendants have bad possession for many years of tbe land outside of tbe Woodard deed.
¶8 We .are, therefore, of opinion that tbe plaintiff could not, in any view of tbe evidence, recover more than tbe land in tbe Woodard deed, and this has been awarded to ber.
¶9 No error.