306 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

by any loose, shifting, or indefinite description of them. And the
allowing of lands to be bound by vague descriptions, would be no
less grievous in its consequences to individuals. No purchaser
could be sure of his purchase. He might be jostled out of his loca-
tion by one who had given no previous distinct intimation of its
being that place or tract which he had in view. The records
would furnish no sure guide; and the chief distinction between a
common and a special warrant would be frittered down to nothing,
or continued only as a delusive name. Report of D. Dulany, 1 H.
& McH 553; Land Ho. Ass. 401.

* All the questions that have been raised, in the discus-
327 sion of the merits of this caveat, are therefore resolvable
into this one: What is that degree of accuracy of the description
of the land aimed at, which is deemed necessary in a special wai-
rant to give it a binding effect? Upon this subject there seem to
exist some difficulties which have not yet been removed, although
the question has been often under the consideration of the Chan-
cellor.

The distinction between a special and a common warrant, as now
understood, and so well established, it is said, was not expressly
and generally recognized until about the year 1750, when warrants
having a location, by the specification of the particular place
where the quantity of land therein called for was to be laid out,
were called special warrants, in contradistinction from common
warrants describing no place; and which, therefore, might be ap
plied anywhere. Land Ho. Ass. 84. It has been laid down, that
the description contained in a special warrant should suit none but
the land contended for; and should be so full and certain as plainly
to point out the intention. But it is said, that, although the ex-
act lines, limits, or boundaries, cannot be expected to be set down
before the survey is made, the description may, at least, point out
to every inquirer the general situation of the land. It may at
least enable a person to say of some spot or point that it is com-
prehended within the tract affected by the warrant. Land Ho.
Ass. 401. And further, that there is some reason to doubt whether
the rule was not less strict before the Revolution; since it appears,
that the special warrants, in the years 1773 and 1774, seldom went
further than to state the vacancy to be adjoining to some particu-
lar tract or tracts, either naming them, or the person or per-
sons in possession of them.(i) In case where the special warrant

(i) FOWLER v. GOODWIN.—KILTY, C., 8th April, 1809.—The proceedings
and the grounds of the caveats, as stated in the argument, have been fully
considered, and notwithstanding the several objections made to these certifi-
cates, the Chancellor considers it as a point clear of any doubt, that the
caveats cannot be sustained.

It appears that a special warrant was obtained by Goodwill, and others,
on the 23d of May. 1774, to take up 400 acres of vacant land, stated to be