Witherspoon v. . Blanks

Superior Court of North Carolina

Witherspoon v. . Blanks

1 N.C. 157

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1799·Published

Opinion

The line in controversy, when run to the end of the distance called for, will not reach Cypress Creek; where, by the patent *Page 142 it is said to terminate; but to reach that place, it must run three times the distance called for. In all such cases the invariable rule is to disregard the distance; and to proceed with the line in the direction called for until it shall interest the creek or other natural boundary.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

NOTE. — See the cases referred to in the note to Bradford v. Hill,2 N.C. 22, and the note to Person v. Roundtree, ante, 69.

Cited: Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N.C. 573.

(158)

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

The line in controversy, when run to the end of the distance called for, will not reach Cypress Creek; where, by the patent *Page 142 it is said to terminate; but to reach that place, it must run three times the distance called for. In all such cases the invariable rule is to disregard the distance; and to proceed with the line in the direction called for until it shall interest the creek or other natural boundary.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

NOTE. — See the cases referred to in the note to Bradford v. Hill,2 N.C. 22, and the note to Person v. Roundtree, ante, 69.

Cited: Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N.C. 573.

(158)

Witherspoon v. . Blanks, 1 N.C. 157 (N.C. Ct. App. 1799).

Pincite

1 N.C. 157 (Witherspoon v. . Blanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related