This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1814 edition. Excerpt: ...of lot No. 12. to which it is admitted the lessor of the plaintiff has, title. It is immaterial in what manner this line was ascertained, whether by a joint submission to one or more surveyors, or by an ex parte survey: it is enough that Kloclc, after it had been ascertained, recognised it as the true line. This would preclude him from denying the plaintiff s right, and must also have the same effect as respects the claim of the defendant, who holds under Klock. The defendant, however, sets up a subsequent agreement made between himself and the lessor of the plaintiff, which he contends is to do away the acts and acknowledgments of Kloclc. This agreement, as stated in the case, I do not think can in any way affect the plaintit f s right. If it is to have the operation of rescinding or waiving any right previously acquired, it was to have that effect on condition that a certain cause then depending, between John J. Klock and George Wills, should terminate in favour of the latter, and it was incumbent on the defendant to show that that suit had terminated favourably to W ills, ' nothing, however, appears to show how that cause had been decided, or whether opinion, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to have shown that the nnwronx, rmwronx, any decision had taken place. The plaintiff had shown enough N" M to entitle him to recover, and if any thing had occurred to take dies, or their agents. away that right, it was incumbent on the defendant to show it. And besides, this second agreement is not free from difliculty, on the ground of the statute of frauds. The title to the premises is acknowledged to be in the lessor of the plaintiff, and if the second agreement is to have any operation, it is to...