Sipe v. Blankenship
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
PARKER, Judge.
Appellants first assign error to the denial of their motions for a directed verdict. In this there was no error. The pleadings and evidence make clear, and appellants in their brief filed on this appeal acknowledge, that the western line of the defendants is the same as the eastern line of the plaintiff. That a bona fide dispute exists as to the true location of that line is manifest. Therefore, this is in fact as well as in form a true processioning proceeding under G.S. Chap. 38, the primary purpose of which is to establish the correct location of the disputed dividing line.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Williams v. RobertsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Cornelison v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Newkirk v. PorterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Gibson v. DudleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Price v. WhisnantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walls v. GrohmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Nichols v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Sipe v. BlankenshipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Walls v. GrohmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985