Reeves v. Musgrove
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
The record in this case is in a confusing state and difficult to understand. The answer of defendant originally admitted the plaintiff’s allegation of ownership of land as set out in the complaint. The title of plaintiff was apparently not in dispute *537when the parties consented to the order of reference. When the matter was heard before the referee the action was in effect a processioning proceeding to determine a boundary line. Pruden v. Keemer, 262 N.C. 212, 136 S.E. 2d 604; Prince v. Prince, 7 N.C. App. 638, 173 S.E. 2d 567; 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Boundaries, § 8, p. 12. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mobley v. . GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Pruden v. KeemerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Prince v. PrinceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reeves v. MusgroveCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978