Civil Action, in the nature of Ejectment, tried before-Watts, J., at Fall Term, 187-1, McDowell Superior Court. The action was brought to recover a tract of land, in the comity of Yancey, and removed upon the affidavit of the plaintiffs to the county of McDowell. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants claimed the locus in quo under deeds of conveyance from James and Robert Love, who were the owners of the land before the date of either conveyance.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1925
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
There is no error in the charge of which the plaintffs have a right to complain.
¶2
The jury having found the fact that a C D ” is “the ridge called for, the question of boundary is too plain to admit off discussion.
¶3
What are the boundaries of a tract of land is a question of law, and his Honor ought to have instructed the jury, that as the deed from A to B calls for.a
due east
course, the fact that a corner is made at B, and another call is made, substituting the word “ eastwardly ” instead of “ east,” to-wit: then
along<
the ridge (an eastwardly course) to the top of the ridge, a
due east
course was excluded, unless a natural object called for, could not be reached without following a due east course. This instruction would have been against the position taken for the plaintiffs, and the verdict which finds the law as his Honor ought to have held, puts the matter right. His Honor might also have charged, that the general description “ so as to exclude the headwaters of Borlin’s creek,” made it necessary to follow the ridge. This the jury have done, and the plaintiff's have no right to complain of the omission.
