mulberry, and hoopwood, N. W. 860 poles to the first station. These two tracts are adjacent to, and bind on each other. It is obvious that they were intended to present rectangular figures, and to contain equal quantities; but by satisfying the calls, the figures are irregular, and do not contain equal quantities. The plaintiff in the Court below locates his pretensions on the plat returned in the cause, beginning at A, then to K, to L, to D, and to the beginning. And he locates Craig's patent, beginning at A, then to B, to C, to D, and to the beginning. The defendants locate it, beginning at A, then to B, to C, to E, and to the beginning. The land contained in the triangle AED is the land in dispute. The defendants, to support their location, offered evidence to prove, that the dividing line between Boyd and Craig being unascertained, the parties, by agreement, had it surveyed, for the purpose of establishing and settling the line between them; that, in the year 1793, it was run, in their presence, from A to E, as distinguished on the plat, and that it was mutually agreed to establish the corner at E, where a boundary was marked, by consent, E C and A B, and that the line from A to E should be the dividing line between them, and that possession had been since held accordingly. They also offered in evidence, a deed from Boyd and wife to William Hanback, bearing date the 14th of December, 1793, for 100 acres, part of the land granted to Boyd, beginning at the corner at E beforementioned, and binding on the line A E, regarding it as the dividing 1819. Boyd V. Graves. 1819. Boyd V. Graves. line between Boyd and Craig; also a deed from Elijah Craig to John Whitesides, dated 12th of May, 1794, for 72 acres, part of Craig's patent, bounding also on the line A E as the dividing line between Boyd and Craig: and that all the other defendants, as purchasers, under Craig, held to the said line A E. The defendant's counsel then moved the Court to instruct the jury, that if they found from the evidence, that, owing to the uncertainty of the line of said Boyd and Carter's military surveys, that the said Boyd and Elijah Craig, by mutual consent, surveyed and located their respective patents by making the line from A to E, and marking the corner at E, with the intent, (at the time,) positively expressed, to settle and ascertain the true boundary and dividing line between the tracts respectively claimed by them under their patents, and that the said line has been acquiesced in by the said parties, and possession held and taken accordingly, for more than 20 years before the commencement of this action, that they ought to find for the defendants: which instruction the Court gave, and to this opinion of the Court, the plaintiff, by his counsel, excepted; and the record of the proceedings was removed, by writ of error, to this Court, for their decision. At the trial in the Court below, several other questions were propounded, and decided by the Court, and to which exceptions were taken, which it is not material to notice here, because, the decision of this Court on the question stated, will decide the controversy between the parties. It appears, that in the year 1793, more than twenty years before the commencement of this action of ejectment, Boyd and Craig employed a surveyor to run the dividing line between them, and they mutually agreed, that it should be thus ascertained and settled. It was, accordingly, run as described, on the plat from A to E, and the corner at E was marked in their presence as the boundary between them. That possession has been held by each, and those claiming under them respectively, from that time to the present; and that each has sold parcels of land, bounding them on the line A E thus agreed on, regarding it as the established line between them. Hence, the question arises, whether the agreement made in 1793, although by parol, accompanied by correspondent possession for more than 20 years, is, or is not, conclusive against the plaintiff's right of recovery in this action? This Court cannot consider the agreement of the parties, although by parol, to settle the dividing line between them by a surveyor, mutually employed, as affected by the statute of frauds, as is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff. It is not a contract for the sale or conveyance of lands. It has no ingredient of such a contract. There is no quid pro quo: and the Court do not consider it as a conveyance of title from one person to another. It was merely a submission of a matter of fact, to ascertain where the line would run on actual survey, beginning at a place admitted and acknowledged by the parties to be a boundary, where the line must begin. The possession subsequently held, and the acts of the parties 1819. Boyd V. Graves. 1819. Dartmouth V. evidenced by their respective sales of parcels of the land held by each, under his patent, bounding on the College agreed line, amount to a full and complete recogniWoodward. tion of it; and in the opinion of this Court, precludes the plaintiff, after such a lapse of time, from denying it to be the dividing line between him and the defendants; and neither ought now to be permitted to disturb the possession of the other, under a pretence that the line was not correctly run. Judgment affirmed. (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) The TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOOD WARD. The charter granted by the British crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New-Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the constitution of the United States, (art. 1. s. 10.) which declares that no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter, was not dissolved by the revolution. An act of the State legislature of New-Hampshire, altering the charter, without the consent of the corporation, in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void. Under its charter, Dartmouth College was a private and not a public corporation. That a corporation is established for purposes of general charity, or for education generally, does not, per se, make it a public corporation, liable to the control of the legislature. ERROR to the Superior Court of the State of New-Hampshire. This was an action of trover brought in the State Court, in which the plaintiffs in error declared for 1819. Dartmouth V. two books of records, purporting to contain the records of all the doings and proceedings of the trustees of Dartmouth College, from the establishment of the corporation until the 7th day of October, Woodward. 1816; the original charter, or letters patent, constituting the college; the common seal; and four volumes or books of account, purporting to contain the charges and accounts in favour of the college. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and at the trial the following special verdict was found: "The said jurors, upon their oath, say, that his Majesty George the Third, King of Great Britain, &c. issued his letters patent, under the public seal of the Province, now State, of New-Hampshire, bearing date the 13th day of December, in the 10th year of his reign, and in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine, in the words following: Charter of Dartmouth GEORGE the THIRD, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, KING, Defender College. of the Faith, and so forth. To all to whom these presents shall come.... GREETING: WHEREAS it hath been represented to our trusty and well beloved John Wentworth, Esq. Governor and commander in chief, in and over our Province of New-Hampshire in New-England in America, that the Reverend Eleazar Wheelock, of Lebanon, in The colony of Connecticut, in New-England aforesaid, now Doctor in Divinity, did, on or about the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty-four, |