Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.

Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.

159 N.C. 445
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 28, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 N.C. 445 (Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co., 159 N.C. 445 (N.C. 1912).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

On a former appeal in this cause, reported in 152 N. C., 544, the facts will sufficiently appear to indicate the purport of the present decision. It was chiefly urged for error in the present trial that the court below had made unwarranted departure from the rulings made in the former opinion, by which the cause should be tried, and more especially in submitting the case on the position that if the “Daniel Moore” line and the “Jesse Gragg’s line” and the line of^John Crisp’s own land, called for in defendant’s grant and made two of the termini of the lines therein and the boundary of a third, “were known and established lines,” they would control the calls by course and distance, also appearing in the grant.

We are of opinion, however, that the objection rests on an erroneous concept of the former decision. It is a settled principle with us in the law of boundary, that, when the line of another tract is definitely called for as one of the termini of a call in a grant or deed and this line is fixed and established, it will control a call by course and distance. Whitaker v. Cover 140 N. C., 280, and authorities cited. And where the line of another tract is the one called for and is sufficiently “proved and established,” the principle applies, whether such line is marked or unmarked. Campbell v. Branch, 49 N. C., 313; Corn v. McCrary, 48 N. C., 496. This position was fully recognized on the former appeal, and was well stated by the Chief Justice as follows: “It is true that the general rule is that course and distance must give way to a call for a natural boundary, and that the line of an adjacent tract, if well known and established, is a natural boundary. But this is because such natural boundary is usually considered more certain, being at a fixed and definite place, if 'established and known,’ and therefore unchangeable and more likely to be the true call in the deed than course and distance, which may, by inadvertence, be incorrectly written down. The reason of the law is the

[0]*0

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

Related

Little v. Sheets
80 S.E.2d 44 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Kissam v. . Gaylord
44 N.C. 117 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1852)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 N.C. 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-lumber-milling-co-v-hutton-bourbonnais-co-nc-1912.