Douglas Land Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co.

58 S.E. 1101, 107 Va. 292, 1907 Va. LEXIS 40
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedSeptember 12, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 58 S.E. 1101 (Douglas Land Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Douglas Land Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 58 S.E. 1101, 107 Va. 292, 1907 Va. LEXIS 40 (Va. 1907).

Opinion

Whittle, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves the location of the true dividing line between the lands of Mrs. Monroe and George Douglas, Jr., (predecessors in title respectively of the defendant in error, the T. W. Thayer Company, plaintiff in the lower court, and the defendant, the Douglas Land Company, the plaintiff in error), both of whom derived title from a common source—their father, George Douglas—as established by the commissioners and confirmed by the Circuit Court of Washington county in the suit to partition the lands of George Douglas, deceased, amongst his heirs.

The plaintiff brought an action of trespass on the case against the defendant and its lessee, the laurel Liver Lumber Company, to recover damages for the alleged cutting and removing of timber from its premises, and to a judgment against the defendants this writ of error was allowed.

The lands which were the subject of partition consisted of three tracts, one containing 62,800 acres, another 10,712 acres, and the third 13,655 acres. The first two tracts, which embrace the land in controversy, were patented to James Heron, December 14, 1795. The three tracts were divided into four parcels. The eastern portion of the largest tract was allotted to William Douglas; the central portion to Mrs. Cruger; and the western to Mrs. Monroe, while the two smaller tracts were allotted to George Douglas, Jr. The partition was confirmed in 1846, and carried into deeds in severalty by a special commissioner appointed by the court for that purpose. The deed to Mrs. Mon[296]*296roe calls for the northwest and southwest corners of the 62,800 acre tract, and also for the eastern lines of two older patents, Hunt’s and Furman’s. The calls in the deed to George Douglas, Jr., are for the northeast corner of the Hunt patent and Mrs. Monroe’s western division line. The disputed lines are from “M” to “0” (contended for by the plaintiff), and from “0” to “5,” and thence to the end of the dotted line (claimed by the defendants), as shown on the “Buchanan Map,” a copy of which is filed with this opinion.

The action of the court in admitting in evidence the Hunt and Furman patents, constitutes the first ground of exception.

As remarked, the lines of these patents are called for in the partition deeds, and they are, therefore, relevant evidence to sustain the theory of the plaintiff as to the true line between the claimants. The land included in the Furman patent adjoins the Hunt patent on the south, and the eastern boundary lines of the two patents are coincident, and, according to the claim of the plaintiff, constitute in part the western line of the 62,800 acre patent. The patents and deeds in the line of the Douglas title refer to the Hunt land- and Furman land interchangeably as the Hunt and Furman land, and evidence was admissible to prove that both tracts weye sometimes called the Hunt land.

The next exception is to the admission of the testimony of the surveyor, Buchanan, that the Debusks, who owned part of the Hunt land adjoining the Douglas land, pointed out to General Greever the northeast corner of the Hunt patent at “CT

Greever was the agent of the defendant, the Douglas Land Company, and was endeavoring to determine the true line between Mrs. Monroe and Douglas, and there was evidence tending to show that he adopted'the corner at “C,” and marked timber to identify it. This evidence was admissible as conducing to establish the plaintiff’s claim that the line from “M” to “O” was the correct line.

Tn Harriman v. Brown, 8 Leigh 706, Judge Tucker observes: “It is not the mere declaration of Milburn that the witness [297]*297gives in evidence, hut it is an act, to-wit, tlie shewing of certain corner trees, which the general reputation of the neighborhood fixed upon as the corners to Ilarriman’s land. * * * Even if Milburn’s shewing certain trees as the corners of the land, was not evidence to establish them as corners, the fact that he pointed out trees, which, by other evidence, are established as true corners, could not be rejected.”

[0]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ronald Moya Obando v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2019
Carter v. Pickering
62 S.E.2d 856 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)
Denis v. Commonwealth
131 S.E. 131 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
W. S. Hoge & Brother v. Prince William Co-operative Exchange, Inc.
126 S.E. 687 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1925)
Honaker Lumber Co. v. Kiser
113 S.E. 718 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1922)
Portner v. Portner's Executors
112 S.E. 762 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1922)
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Simmons
103 S.E. 609 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1920)
Schmidt v. Wallinger
99 S.E. 680 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
Laughlin v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
205 S.W. 3 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Gafford v. Davis
158 P. 490 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Stewart v. Rogers
86 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1915)
Sutherland v. Gent
82 S.E. 713 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1914)
L. E. Mumford Banking Co. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Kilmarnock
82 S.E. 112 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1914)
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway v. McCarthy
76 S.E. 319 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1912)
Lynchburg Cotton Mills v. Rives
70 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1911)
Strause v. Richmond Woodworking Co.
65 S.E. 659 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 S.E. 1101, 107 Va. 292, 1907 Va. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-land-co-v-t-w-thayer-co-va-1907.