#### Steele vs. Hatch.

CATEELE claimed the disputed part, under an old grant made to his father, who had sold all of it but the disputed part. The defendant claimed first under a grant of a latter deed, for 8 5 acres, including the whole of the disputed part; — also under a grant of 200 acres, including part of the disputed tract. Ho proved possession of part of the disputed tract for 30 years ; buR the part so possessed, was a part of the 200 acres ; which 200 acres had been sold to Hatch by the father of the plaintiff, under \vh un tbe plaintiff claimed the disputed part.

Hall., Judge.

This possession will not avail the defendant; for though it is a part of the land included in the first patent, it is also a part of the land included in the second patent, and also a part of the two hundred acres. It gives possession only of the 200 acre tract, not of the land included in the 85 acres ; because being sold ao a part of the 200 acres by P. Steele, the lather who owned the said remnant, he was thereby divested of so much of the said remnant as was included in the 200 acres, and could not sue for it, nor could the plaintiff claiming under Mm. The possession was not of any land which belonged to the plaintiff — -nor did such possession call upon him to assert his claim to the residue of the remnant not included in the said 200 acres, by entry or otherwise.