Standen v. . Bains

2 N.C. 238
Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided October 5, 1795·Published

Opinion

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.

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

Standen v. . Bains, 2 N.C. 238 (N.C. Ct. App. 1795).

2 N.C. 238 (Standen v. . Bains) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huffman v. . Walker
83 N.C. 411 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
Cherry v. Slade's Administrator
7 N.C. 82 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1819)
Doe on the Demise of Campbell v. Branch
49 N.C. 313 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1857)