¶1 The courses of the patent after arriving afe ILoekwood Folly are described thus: thence up a creek ’within the inlet and the weciwardly branch to the head; thence north-east to Elizabeth river. Where there is a natural boundary it must be followed j and if, as here, the next course will lead to a point whereby the land will not be included, but calls for a natural boundary, the course is to be disregarded, and the nearest course to the natural boundary must be taken. As to possession, if a smaller patent be laid on land included In a greater, and the pa-tentee of this smaller part take possession, and that be not interrupted, though possession be taken of other parts of the larger patent, and that uninterrupte d possession be continued under the smaller patent for seven yeais, it will give a title to the possessor.
3 N.C. 179
Swain v. . Bell
Superior Court of North Carolina
Decided May 5, 1802
Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1802-05-05
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1802-05-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1964
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →