Blair v. Fairchilds
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
The controversy, by stipulation of the parties that boundary only was involved, became in effect a processioning proceeding. Harrill v. Taylor, 247 N.C. 748, 102 S.E. 2d 223 (1958) ; Welborn v. Lumber Co., 238 N.C. 238, 77 S.E. 2d 612 (1953) ; Goodwin v. Greene, 237 N.C. 244, 74 S.E. 2d 630 (1953) ; Clegg v. Canady, 217 N.C. 433, 8 S.E. 2d 246 (1940) ; Napoli v. Phil-brick, 8 N.C. App. 9, 173 S.E. 2d 574 (1970). It was therefore the duty of the judge to determine what constitutes the divisional line, and also as the trier of the facts, to say where it is actually located on the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rural Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. H. C. Jones Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Jenkins v. TranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- McCanless v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Nationwide Homes of Raleigh, N. C., Inc. v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Goodwin v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Matter of StarcherWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
- Smith v. N.C. Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- State v. DowneyCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2000
- Young v. YoungCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Ingle v. IngleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.