Doe on Dem. Mode v. Long
Supreme Court of North Carolina
EjegtmeNT, tried before Hervry, /., at Spring Term 1870 ■of Buthereord Court. The question was as to the true boundary line between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant, and also as to the effect of a possession by the latter under the circumstances given below. The defendant was in possession of a part of the land known as u the Smart Grant,” and the plaintiff owned a tract adjoining that grant, and calling for the line of that grant as its western boundary.
Read the full summary
EjegtmeNT, tried before Hervry, /., at Spring Term 1870 ■of Buthereord Court. The question was as to the true boundary line between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant, and also as to the effect of a possession by the latter under the circumstances given below. The defendant was in possession of a part of the land known as u the Smart Grant,” and the plaintiff owned a tract adjoining that grant, and calling for the line of that grant as its western boundary. In the grant that .line was straight; from A. to B., in the plat furnished on the trial. Eor sixty or more years, however, a line…
1Opinion of the CourtPearsoN, C. J.
His Honor charged, in substance, that the corners at A and B being fixed, the true line was a straight one between these points, as contended for by the plaintiff, and not ‘‘the line of marked trees, ” as contended for by the defendant, such line of marked trees not being-called for in the deed. Assume this to be so. His Honor further charged, in substance, that the fact of defendants having cleared and fenced in the land up to the line of marked trees, claiming that to be true line, did not have the effect of rendering the plaintiff’s deed, executed while the defendant was occupying,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dawson v. . AbbottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Neale v. LeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1890
- Young v. . GriffithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874