Legal Opinion

Hoyle v. . Wilson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 5, 1847PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The report of the processioner is radically defective in not stating with precision the claims of the respective parties, so as to show what lines were disputed or how far they were disputed. In every legal controversy there must be an identity given to the subject, and an issue between the parties. In actions at common law in which the question of boundary is triable the land is described and identified in the declaration or new assignment, and the issues arise on the pleas and rejoinder, and thus it appears upon the record what the controversy is. There is the same necessity for precision…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. . McNairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  2. Vandyke v. . FarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
  3. Porter v. . DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
  4. Euliss v. McAdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  5. Matthews v. . MatthewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1843

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vandyke v. . FarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API