Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 N.C. 183

Pender v. Coor

Superior Court of North Carolina

Decided July 15, 1802

Superior Court of North Carolina · decided 1802-07-15

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1802-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1959

7 state decisions

501802181018201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

TAYLOR, Judge.

¶1The third line of the plaintiff’s tract is described in the patent under which he claims, So h$ Jdasi VÍ7 poles to an oak, thence southwardly along the veri-aus courses of ike river to the first station. — —«The third line it is contended extends to Use river, because the river is the boundary called for between the corner of the third line, and the beginning. This as an abstrae!, proposition is traev, but then there is evidence that an oak actually stands at the spot where the 179 poles end j and a southwardly course from thence ■will strike the river at a small distance, and the river from tli? point where it is intersected by a line iron the oak to the near-et.t part of the river runs southwardly to the beginning. If the line be not stopped at the oak, but is extended to the river, the course of the river from, thence will not be a southwaidly but a west-vrardly course till we get opposite the oak, and ihcu southwardly. If the jury believe, the oak to have been made the point of termi-MDir.atiosi when die original survey wuo made, they should mak-i it the bouuda.y now.

¶2Verdic: accordingly.

/3/nc/183 · .json · Public domain