Sandifer v. . Foster

Superior Court of North Carolina

Sandifer v. . Foster

2 N.C. 237

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1795·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The river in this case must be considered as the boundary of Gee's patent. It has always been thus uniformly decided in our courts.

The jury so found, and there was judgment accordingly.

Cited: Hartsfield v. Westbrook, post, 258; Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.C. 85;Hurley v. Morgan, 18 N.C. 430; Slade v. Neal, 19 N.C. 62; Shultz v.Young, 25 N.C. 387; McPhaul v. Gilchrist, 29 N.C. 173; Literary Boardv. Clark, 31 N.C. 61; Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N.C. 143; Brown v. House,118 N.C. 878; Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; Rowe v. Lumber Co.,133 N.C. 437; Whitaker v. Cover, 140 N.C. 284; Boyden v. Hagaman,169 N.C. 202; Power Co. v. Savage, 170 N.C. 629. *Page 185

(238)

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

The river in this case must be considered as the boundary of Gee's patent. It has always been thus uniformly decided in our courts.

The jury so found, and there was judgment accordingly.

Cited: Hartsfield v. Westbrook, post, 258; Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.C. 85;Hurley v. Morgan, 18 N.C. 430; Slade v. Neal, 19 N.C. 62; Shultz v.Young, 25 N.C. 387; McPhaul v. Gilchrist, 29 N.C. 173; Literary Boardv. Clark, 31 N.C. 61; Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N.C. 143; Brown v. House,118 N.C. 878; Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; Rowe v. Lumber Co.,133 N.C. 437; Whitaker v. Cover, 140 N.C. 284; Boyden v. Hagaman,169 N.C. 202; Power Co. v. Savage, 170 N.C. 629. *Page 185

(238)

Sandifer v. . Foster, 2 N.C. 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 1795).

Pincite

2 N.C. 237 (Sandifer v. . Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related