Blount v. Benbury.
Blount v. . Benbury
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Addendum
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. *Page 311
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 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.