Roberts v. . Dickey
Supreme Court of North Carolina
PROCESSIONING proceeding, heard upon exceptions to report, at January Term, 1891, of Durham Superior Court, Boykin, J, presiding.
Read the full summary
PROCESSIONING proceeding, heard upon exceptions to report, at January Term, 1891, of Durham Superior Court, Boykin, J, presiding. This is a processioning proceeding begun by the plaintiff A jury of freeholders was appointed as allowed by the statute (The Code, § 1928), and they took action and made report, whereof the following is the substance: “It was demanded by the processioner of the plaintiff to say where he claimed the dividing line between him and defendant to be located, to which he responded, on the north side of a wagon road leading west from said Mountain creek, from a sweet-gum…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, C. J.
after stating the case: The report is very-indefinite and unsatisfactory. It fails to specify, with reasonable precision, what lines the parties respectively claimed and where they were. What the matter in dispute was cannot be seen from it. The contentions of the parties should appear so that what the jury determined can be seen and understood, and as welJ, so that the parties may readily present their objections to the action of the jury and that of the processioner. The report goes little beyond designating a line. Porter v. Durham, 90 N. C., 55; Forney v. Williamson, 98 N. C., 329; Euliss…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Forney v. . WilliamsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Porter v. . DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Euliss v. McAdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Euliss v. . McAdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888