Per Curiam.
The plaintiff sets lip 9. right to recover on ÜM grounds, 1st. Upon, his paper title-; .2di Onhis possession.. .- It is manifest there can- be no gore between Sanders & Héermancds patent,- and that Called the Mine Partners patent) the latter- is bounded on .the- former. All- the evidence shows,, (and it has not beenpretended on the argument,.) .that the premises, do- not lie within,.Sanders Sr HeermanCeU .patentit is equally Certain that a line called the Indian line, is-.the well-known northern boundary- of that patent: indeed, in the patent to Reed,-this line is expressly recognised. The description of* the land granted by the Mine Partners patent, strongly corro* borates the location given by the defendants. The south line is not a straight line-;-the Sanders S Heerniance patent is a southerly boundary, so. far as it goes,and then it becomes awes* terly boundary, which could not-, happen unless there wása deviatipn. in the lihe. The line. Set up by die .plain tiff, as the- south line of the Mine Partners patent,.is a straight line,iwfiich is in direct opposition-to the expressions, in that, grant. .
It appears, pretty satisfactorily)how the line set up by the plaintiff, ás the south .line off the Mine Partners patent, cameto be run as it. was. Theproprietors, many years since; laid out á ’tier Of water lots onthe river, extending four , miles back. These- were .straight lines, extending beyond.where the-south line of the--patent changed its course, and, therefore, not affecting the land lying, to the south of, this line; and ;the Sanders Sr Heermance patent,, confessedly, not extending north Of the Indian lipe, gave .rise to the idea that the -intermediate lands were a gore, and vacant, when, in truth, theró could be no such.thing.
If it were not .satisfactorilyexplained how, and for what purpose, this line was run, it might be deemed a location by the ..patentees, of their south boundary, but the facts in the ease preelude this conclusión ; for it appears that they have claimed, and exercised acts of. ownership over, what is called the gore. It follows thatthe plaintiff has failed in showing a paper title to the premises, inasmuch as the premises are comprehended in an older patent to- the Mine Partners.. ■ Ifother considerations were necessary t.o evince the plaintiff’s want of title, it is a strong circumstance, that since- the. erection of towns in this state’the tract of land called the great or Lower Mine Partners,, has been the boundary recognised by the legislature, between the town# ©f.Poughkeepsie and Clinton, and the lands in question áre described in the designation as lying in C/mion..
As to the possessory right, it would be excessively uninteresting, if not disgusting, to go through and present the confused mass of evidence in relation to it; Suffice it to say, that none of the possessions, prior to those of the defendant’s father and of Thorn, áre definite ór continued, but are wholly vague, equivocal arid uncertain; sometimes the possession is under the Mine Partners, and sometimes under Reed and Ludlow, and sometimesthe possessors are. mere intruders. Such a heterogeneous possession ought not to. avail against a clear paper title, in opposition,to that of the -léssors, as no immediate privity is pretqnded between the lessors and the defendants.
Judgment for the defendants.