¶1 It is not contended that the defendants have not shown sufficient evidence to go to the jury to the effect that the J. D. Parker grant, being the junior grant, may lap over upon the Enoch King grant, so that the actual boundary called for in the Parker grant will take in the triangle from 9 to 1 to D and back to 9, or that the defendants have not offered evidence of possession for “seven years of that triangle.” The plaintiff’s contention is that, upon the pleadings, no such position was open to the defendants (plaintiff’s brief), and this contention is upon the idea that — •
¶2 1. Upon the pleadings, the location of the Enoch King grant is controlling — that is, the western line of said grant must be the eastern line of the Parker grant.
¶3 2. This being true, and it being admitted in the answer that there is no lappage, and that defendants own land on the west of the Enoch King grant, the question of seven years possession under color of title, on the theory that J. D. Parker’s grant lapped on Enoch King’s grant, the lap-page being represented on the map by the triangle, D-l 9 and back to D, could not arise.
¶4 If we agreed with the plaintiffs as to their construction of the answer, we would perhaps reach the same conclusion, but we do not so understand the answer.
¶5 As we read it, the defendants deny that the location of the King grant, from 9 to D, as contended for by the' plaintiffs, is the true line, and allege that the line runs from 7 to 1, and it is upon this position that they say there is no lappage; but they go further and say they own lands on both sides of the line from 9 to D.
¶6 In other words, giving the pleading a liberal construction, which is the established rule (Brewer v. Wynne, 154 N. C., 467), it first denies the location of the line as alleged by the plaintiffs, and therefore no lappage, .and then alleges ownership of land on both sides of that line, which put the title in issue and permitted the introduction of evidence of adverse possession. Whitaker v. Garren, 167 N. C., 661.
¶7 The question of costs is decided against the defendants in Swain v. Clemmons, 175 N. C., 240, the plaintiffs having been adjudged to be the •owners of a part of the land in controversy.
¶8 Affirmed on both appeals.