Doe on the Demise of Hobbs v. Outlaw
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN of ejeotMent, tried before Siiepiieed, J., at the last Superior Court of Bertie. The land in dispute between the parties, is that included in the diagram A, B, C, D, E, K, I, II, G, E, the plaintiff contending that the lines designated by the letters E, G, H, I, K, were the true lines of his tract, and the defendant insisting on those marked by A, B, C, I), E; and one of the chief questions was, whether the beginning corner of the Ereeman tract, claimed by plaintiff,…
Read the full summary
ActioN of ejeotMent, tried before Siiepiieed, J., at the last Superior Court of Bertie. The land in dispute between the parties, is that included in the diagram A, B, C, D, E, K, I, II, G, E, the plaintiff contending that the lines designated by the letters E, G, H, I, K, were the true lines of his tract, and the defendant insisting on those marked by A, B, C, I), E; and one of the chief questions was, whether the beginning corner of the Ereeman tract, claimed by plaintiff, was at I, or at a “ pine-stump” at E, for if at I, then according to the courses and distances the land in dispute would…
1Opinion of the CourtBattue, J.
The first objection, which appears in the defendant’s bill of exceptions is, that the record of the proceedings in the expcvrte suit, for the partition of the land of Joshua Rayner, among his heirs-at-law, was admitted, on the part of the plaintiff, to show that the line I, H, was one of the dividing lines between the Freeman land, claimed by the plaintiff, and the Rayner land, part of which was claimed by the-defendant. This evidence was received by the Court as the declarations of the commissioners, who were proved to be now dead, as to o question of boundary. The evidence was clearly…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. . AlstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893