Summary
In Standen v. Bains, 2 N.C. 238, the Plaintiff claimed under Askill, who patented a tract of land in 1740, extending, as he alleged, to a line distinguished in the plat by the name of the dotted line.
Summary of this case from Cherry v. SladeOpinion
(October Term, 1795.)
General reputation is admissible as evidence in cases of boundary. Marked lines and corners may be established as the true one, although variant from the courses and distances mentioned in the deed.
TRESPASS, quare clausum freigt. Not guilty, liberum tenementum, etc., pleaded. The plaintiff claimed under Arkill, who patented a tract of land in 1740, extending, as he alleged, to a line distinguished in the plat by the name of the dotted line. The courses and distances mentioned in the patent extended not so far, but only to a line distinguished in the plat by the name of the black line. The defendant entered this intermediate tract in 1784, and took possession, whereupon the plaintiff brought his action. The court permitted evidence to be given that the dotted line, which was a marked one, had for a long time since 1740 been reputed the line of Arkill's tract. The patent called for a gum standing in Roberts' line; this gum was found at the termination of the dotted line. It next called for two lines of Roberts' tract; the dotted line was upon these two lines. It next called for Hoskin's corner: the (239) dotted line went to that corner, and there was nothing to prove the black line to be the true one, but course and distance. There was no witness who could prove positively that the dotted line was the line of Arkill's tract.
The mistake of a surveyor in describing or laying down the boundaries of the land patented should not prejudice the patentee, if the jury are satisfied that the marked line was the true one, although the distances thereof will not correspond with the distances in the patent. Therefore, in the present case the jury may consider whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy them that this dotted line was the real boundary, though not truly described in the patent; and if they think so, then to find for the plaintiff. The Court then recapitulated the circumstances above mentioned, as affording a proof of this being the true line, rather than the other, and the jury under their direction found for the plaintiff.
See Bradford v. Hill, ante, 22.
Cited: Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.C. 88; Hartzog v. Hubbard, 19 N.C. 243; Campbell v. Branch, 49 N.C. 314; Huffman v. Walker, 83 N.C. 415.