Summary
In Blount v. Benbury, 3 N.C. 353, Judge Hall says there have been many decisions in this county which warrant a departure from the line described in the deed or patent, to follow a marked line, which the Jury have good reason to believe was the true one.
Summary of this case from Cherry v. SladeOpinion
(October Term, 1805.)
1. The copy of the grant from the Secretary's office, which grant does not appear to have been signed by the Governor, cannot be given as evidence of the grant, but it may as a circumstance to show that the grant once existed.
2. A line described in a deed or patent may be departed from in order to follow a marked line which the jury believe to be the true one.
PLAINTIFF offered a copy of a grant from the Secretary's office. It was not signed by the Governor.
It cannot be received as a copy of a grant, but it may as a circumstance to show that there was once a grant in existence.
It was read. The dispute concerned the title of land between two parallel lines. The lower of them was said to be J. Blount's patent line; and if so, defendant was not in possession of plaintiff's land; but if the upper parallel line was J. Blount's patent line, then the defendant was in the possession of plaintiff's land. The patent under which the defendant claimed called for Beasley's line and J. Blount's line, S. 85 E. as one of the boundaries; and the grantor to Benbury, in 1783, called for J. Blount's line, and marked the line now contended for by the defendant, at the time of making his deed. One question was whether the line thus marked should be considered the line which the deed extended to, or whether J. Blount's line, wherever it might be, should be considered the boundary of the deed, notwithstanding the demarcation.
The act of limitations would make a title for the defendant, if the deed extended to the marked line; but I am of opinion it extended no further than to J. Blount's line, wherever that was. The demarcation is not an ascertainment of the line, which he meant as James Blount's line, called for in the deed; and of course the defendant has no color of title to the land in dispute. Also, though the patent calls for Beasley's line, and the patentee's old line, S. 85 E. for one boundary, still the jury may consider Beasley's line the boundary, so far as it goes; and then the marked line, which is 51 poles to the north of it and parallel to the line drawn from the termination of Beasley's, the same course with Beasley's, because there have been many (354) decisions in this country which warrant a departure from the line described in a deed or patent, to follow a marked line which the jury have good reason to believe was the true one.
NOTE. — See, as to the second point, Person v. Roundtree, 1 N.C. 69, and the references in the note to that case. 2 N.C. 378.
Cited: Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.C. 88; Fruit v. Brower, 9 N.C. 341; Reed v. Shenk, 14 N.C. 68, 70; Dobson v. Whisenhunt, 101 N.C. 648; Brown v. House, 118 N.C. 879.