grant ran north to Shaw’s Creek, thence down the creek to its junction with Edisto river, thence down the river some distance, thence south until it intersected a line extended due east from the black jack. On the north side, the line from Edisto called for Johnson’s land as its boundary. There was no doubt that the boundary on the north was Shaw’s Creek, and that the boundaries on the west and south were lines extended north and east from the black jack. The dispute was as to the eastern boundary. On the original plat, the public road to Pine Log bridge, on Edisto, was represented crossing the southern line about half way, and passing out of the grant about midway the northern line. By location by course and distance, this road passed through the corner of the land, extending only a few chains beyond it. On the location of Johnson’s land, it was found that, instead of lying wholly below the junction of Shaw’s Creek with the Edisto, it commenced on Shaw’s Creek some distance above the junction, so as to cut off entirely that part of the original boundary which called for the lower part of Shaw’s Creek and the Edisto." The plaintiff contended for one of two modes offlocation.

“ 1. To begin on Shaw’s creek, where Johnson’s land began, thence to run along the various courses of Johnson’s land to its termination, and from thence along the course called for by the Minor grant, until the line would intersect the south line from the black jack. This would require an extension of the south line about 102 chains, but would preserve the road in nearly its relative position on the original plat.

“ 2. To regard the road as a station, and to extend the south boundary, the plat-distance beyond it, and then to close the east line, by running the course called for to Johnson’s land, and along the lines of it to Shaw’s Creek.

“ Neither of these locations could vary materially the shape of the plat, and both would fall much short of the number of acres called for, but this latter circumstance arises from the fact that Shaw’s Creek is found much short of the distance called for in the original plat. Both of these locations include the land in dispute.

“ The defendant contended that the true mode of location was to run the distance called for on the south line from the black jack, and from where the distance terminated, to run a line (as the east boundary) along the course called for, to its intersection with Shaw’s Creek or Johnson’s line.. This would include the road, but not as represented on the original, and would touch Johnson’s line, so as to make it a small part of the boundary.

“ I thought either of the two first modes preferable to the latter.

“ 1. I have always regarded a road, or a branch, a creek or swamp, the same as a marked tree, and if there had been a marked tree as a station found, the location should be made so as to give the plat-distance beyond.

“2. As Johnson’s land was found to extend further north than was supposed at the time of the original survey, and as the plaintiff, by reason thereof, was prevented from going to the mouth of the creek and his distance down the Edisto, and closing from thence by Johnson’s line and his course and distance, he had a right, when thus stopped by Johnson’s line, to continue along that line, so as to make it his east boundary as far as it went, and then to resume his original course. This is in. conformity with decided cases, and in my judgment was the correct mode of locating the land. The jury found this location.

The defendant appealed, and moved- for a new trial, on the grounds:

1. Because the location established by the'jury is not in accordance with law and evidence.

2. Because the grant under which the plaintiff claims is void, as being for 'a greater number of acres on the bank of a river than the law allows.

3". Because the verdict is in other respects contrary to law and evidence.

This case was argued, first in May, 1852, and again in December, 1852, by Bellinger & Bauskett, for the appellant, and by A. P. Aldrich & Carroll, contra. The following authorities were cited: Sturgeon vs. Floyd, 3 Rich. 80; 5 Strob. 221; Brecken. Miscel. 271; Colclough vs. Richardson, 1 McC. 167; Bradford vs. Pitts, 2 Mill, 115 ; Act 1784, 4 Stat. 592, § 12 ; Act 1777, 5 Stat. 519 ; Felder vs. Bonnett, .2 ■ McM. 44; Act 1718, 3 Stat. 49, § 14; Martin vs. Simpson, Harp. 54; Act 1733,3 Stat. 245, § 5 ; Shoolbred vs. Vanderhorst, 1 Brev. 315; Amick vs. Holman, 3 Strob. 125; Fulwood vs. Graham, 1 Rich. 491; Atkinson vs. Anderson, 3 McC. 223 ; Richardson vs. Moody, 2 Brev. 442; Dyson vs. Leek, 2 Rich. 543.