Newbern,

July Term, 1804.

#### — vs. Heritage.

YffTSRITAGF. had sold land--. to the plaintiff, í;ncl coveatmieel AJ. j0;. t’u g .odness of the title. He had in his deed, d- scribed the lands by a line of a certain coarse and disianc»- to A £ffe line» — Jienre a certain coarte and distance 'with his iiise to, She. The course aoci distance of these two linea included Und which belong- <1 1.0 another, but not if A B’s line; be uir&idei'cd as the boundary.

M-Gmji Judge»

The line of A E is to be considered as in® bour.'As-y of .he land * Id by Merite|'v. Ac did not »<tll •iuylw-yottd dial, and oí course did not sell to the pukiúíf the Ami be says he did, E<‘ that land hs® been recovi red IVosn tbs pkhiidE, this convenant ¿cc» Hot subject tac defendant to pay for the value cí A

VesfflcS and juarmene accordingly»