Mathews v. Gillespie

120 S.E. 324, 137 Va. 639, 1923 Va. LEXIS 187
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedNovember 15, 1923
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 324 (Mathews v. Gillespie) 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
Mathews v. Gillespie, 120 S.E. 324, 137 Va. 639, 1923 Va. LEXIS 187 (Va. 1923).

Opinion

Prentis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is exceptional in that the learned attorneys have by stipulation and in argument discarded many confusing and immaterial facts, confining themselves and directing our attention to the single and controlling-issue which is involved. It therefore presents a pleasing contrast with many other eases which reach this-court.

The ownership of ten and forty-seven hundredths acres of.land is involved, and the question is raised by [641]*641petition under Code, section 5490, for the establishment of a line between coterminous lands.

This is the single issue which is presented: If the line in dispute runs as the plaintiffs contend, then the triangle of land ten and forty-seven hundredths acres in area belongs to the plaintiffs; but if the disputed line runs as the defendant contends, then this land belongs to the defendant. Its determination depends upon the true construction of a single deed dated May 1, 1867, from Sively to the defendant, Gillespie, and upon specific language of that deed which (omitting other undisputed boundaries) describes certain boundaries of .the land thus: “Thence running with the creek until it intersects G. Kyle’s line, thence with that line up the mill ridge to the corner of the above survey, thence along the upper line of the fifty-eight acre tract to the said McCaleb’s corner, supposed to be on that line.”

While the issue is thus simplified, it is exceedingly difficult to state comprehensively the _ circumstances which aid in determining it. ■ .

For the better understanding of thy controversy, therefore, a section of a pkv' filed with/ the petition and used in evidence is herewith printed and referred to.

The triangle indicated by the letters D, A, B, stows the land in controversy. The line claimed by the plaintiffs is individed by the letters W, D, B, and that elaimed by the defendant by the letters W, D, A, B. The plaintiffs asked the trial court for an instruction, which was refused. It reads:

“The court instructs the jury that according to the terms of Mr. Gillespie’s deed, the boundary line here in qaestion must run from the intersection of the Gillespie line with the Kyle line at the creek, which point is marked ‘W’ on the plat filed with the plaintiff’s petition, to a common corner of the 259 acre Persinger survey [643]*643‘and the fifty-eight acre Persinger survey,’ that is, to the point marked on said plat as ‘B;’ from that point the deed requires the line of the smaller tract to follow the upper line of said ‘fifty-eight acre survey’ to the point of beginning. The court further instructs the jury that the line shown on said plat as running from ‘A’ to ‘B’ is not called for in said Gillespie deed, and that therefore the point marked ‘A’ on said plat cannot be a corner of the true boundary line in question between the parties as called for by said deed; and accordingly the true boundary line between the parties is that shown on said plat to run from ‘W’ past ‘D’ to the point ‘B’, and the jury shall so find.”

[642]

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

Related

Wetlands America Trust, Inc. v. White Cloud Nine Ventures, L.P.
88 Va. Cir. 341 (Loudoun County Circuit Court, 2014)
Providence Properties, Inc. v. United Virginia Bank/Seaboard National
251 S.E.2d 474 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1979)
Dillon v. Davis
112 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1960)
Conner v. Hendrix
72 S.E.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1952)
Rucker v. Gregory
62 S.E.2d 221 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1950)
Westland Realty Corp. v. Griffin
145 S.E. 718 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1928)
Smith v. Bailey
127 S.E. 89 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 S.E. 324, 137 Va. 639, 1923 Va. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-gillespie-va-1923.