(after stating the facts). The land in controversy was a small part of a large tract granted to Nathaniel McLurd in 1789, and it was in shape a rectilinear triangle having its base at the south of the tract, running from east to west and culminating in an acute angle at the north.

The plaintiffs claim the land in controversy by descent from James McLurd, who claimed his title by devise from Nathaniel McLurd.

The defendant claimed the land under a deed of conveyance from Nathaniel McLurd, dated in 1821, to Henderson, and a deed from Henderson to Cathy, dated in 1825.

The locus in quo lias between two parallel lines running across the tract from east to west, which were represented on the plot by the line L K, lying nearest to the apex of the triangle, and the line F G further south of that.

The plaintiffs had been for many years in possession of the tract lying north of these lines, and the defendant and those under whom he claimed for over forty years, in that part of the triangle lying south of those lines.

The land lying between the lines L K and F G was woodland — upon which there had been no clearing until about one year before the commencement of this action. The contention *315 between the parties was, whether the defendant’s deed covered the loous in quo.

The plaintiffs insisted that Nathaniel McLurd’s deed to Henderson only went as far as the lower line F G, and he had no right to convey any land lying north of that line. But the defendant contended that the deed to Henderson covered the land lying north of the line F G and up to the line L K, but if that was not so, he and those under whom he claimed had had adverse possession of the lappage up to the line L K, under the Cathy deed, for more than thirty years, by using it for getting timber of all kinds, rails, firewood and saw-logs, and to show that the boundaries of his land embraced the locus in quo, offered in evidence a deed executed by J. W. McLurd to one Mullen, conveying the land lying above the line F G, which called for the Cathy line. This deed was offered only as a declaration of McLurd, one of the plaintiffs, as to the location of the Cathy line, claimed by the defendants as the line L K. The defendants, in reply to that evidence, proposed to ask Mullen, a witness for defendant, whether or not J. "W. McLurd, at the time he made the deed to him, had not stated that he did not know where the Cathy line was.

To this evidence the defendant objected and the objection was sustained by the Court.

In the refusal to admit this evidence we think there was error.

The deed to Mullen -was offered simply as a declaration, and as such is subject to the same rules that apply to other declarations, one of the most important of which is, that when a declaration is offered in evidence by one party, the opposing party has the right to all that -was said at the'time in that connection.

There were some other points raised in the case, but as we are of opinion that His Honor was in error in excluding this evidence it is useless to consider them.

There is error. The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and this must be certified to that court that a venire de novo may be awarded.

Error. Reversed