Opinion
No. 38580.
January 19, 1953.
1. Boundaries — surveys — original locations.
In making a survey of lands held by governmental descriptions the problem is to locate the lines according to the original survey and to follow the footsteps of the then official surveyor using first such visible and actual landmarks or monuments as were made by him, and if these cannot be ascertained, resort must then be had to courses and distances.
2. Boundaries — field notes — measuring from streams when referred to in the field notes.
When the only monuments of the lines of the original government survey were made on the trees along the lines of that survey and all the trees had long ago disappeared, resort may next be had to the streams mentioned in the field notes, provided it is shown that the streams had not changed their courses since the government survey was made, and by measurements of the distances to and from such streams according to the distances and directions contained in the field notes.
3. Boundaries — location by measurements from streams mentioned in the field notes.
When the location of the original range line between owners is the issue in dispute and when by measurement from the streams mentioned in the field notes the surveyor was enabled to locate two section corners on the range line from which corners a line running north and south checked with the range line which had been recognized by abutting landowners for many years, the survey so made is to be preferred to a survey which did not attempt to locate any government corners but merely started at a corner which had been recognized by the landowners in the particular area of that corner, and especially so when the surveyor last mentioned would not testify positively that the corners shown on his map were the true government corners.
Headnotes as approved by Kyle, J.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Monroe County; W.H. INZER, Chancellor.
Richard B. Booth, for appellant.
There were no monuments or corners to tie this survey to by the admission of both of the surveyors except that Mr. B.G. Brigantz secured other field notes and plats than those found in the chancery clerk's office of Monroe County, Mississippi, and which did have reference to certain streams. The county surveyor used old surveys in the community and recognized markers which, although not referred to in the field notes, were accepted as the corners.
The appellee's surveyor, Brigantz, based his survey on a Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, and relied on the instructions therein contained which shows that the solar observation method of surveying is more accurate than magnetic surveying but the lands involved in this dispute were originally surveyed and laid out by the magnetic method and even if not as accurate as the solar method, the authorities are all in accord that even if the original survey is inaccurate, the patentees and the successors in title take according to said magnetic or incorrect surveys and that no one including the General Land Office of the United States can at this late date change these lines by a new method of surveying. 42 Am. Jur. Sec. 40; Wells v. Jackson Iron Manufacturing Co., 47 N.H. 235, 90 Am. Dec. 589; May v. Baskin, 12 S. M. 428; J.R. Buckwalter Lbr. Co. v. Wright, 159 Miss. 470, 132 So. 443.
The record will show that proper objections were made to the appellee's survey made by one Brigantz and that the objection to the same was timely made and we respectfully submit that as the above authorities show, the method of solar observation of surveying followed by the appellee's survey could not possibly have relocated the original line as one method, that of magnetic surveying, is shown to have been inaccurate and the new or solar method is shown to be accurate and the difficulty with the appellee's position throughout has been that his surveyor used the correct method but the law is clear that he should have used the old magnetic method to find these lines as the county surveyor did.
We do not see how it can be seriously contended that the appellee's surveyor is a competent surveyor in view of his testimony and the method that he used and we think that the law is clear that the survey as made by the county surveyor must stand until the appellee sets the same aside by a competent surveyor which has not been done in this case. As to this point, we respectfully call the attention of the Court to the Mississippi case of Pope v. Ivy, 117 Miss. 501, 78 So. 367, wherein the Court holds that the survey made by the county surveyor is entitled to a presumption of correctness until overturned by a competent survey and surveyor.
The chancellor in his memorandum opinion sustained the objection of the appellee to the field notes of this county kept in the chancery clerk's office for the reason that these field notes which were used by the county surveyor although the same as those introduced by the appellee's surveyor except that the field notes of the county surveyor did not carry the reference to the small stream, which references were carried in the field notes of the appellee's surveyor and with reference to this point as to the reliability of any stream, we respectfully call the attention of the Court to the case of Wroten v. Fern, 203 Miss. 361, 35 So.2d 534, wherein Justice Griffith in his opinion states as follows: ". . . . it is a matter of common knowledge that rivers and streams in this territory change their courses in many places by distances more or less, from a few feet to many feet, this being true even as to so large a stream as the Mississippi River. The fact that a survey now made does not precisely check with the location of a stream as shown on the field notes a hundred years old is not enough to discredit the present survey."
With reference to the streams relied upon by the appellee's surveyor, Brigantz, we respectfully call the attention of the Court to the description of the streams which the surveyor, Brigantz, testified that he used as a basis for locating his lines and to the size of these streams which the testimony will show to be some six or eight feet in width.
Thomas F. Paine, for appellee.
And on page two counsel for appellant makes the following statement, "B.G. Brigantz, the surveyor for the appellee, ran his entire survey by the solar methods and did not use the magnetic compass on his instrument by his own admission throughout the survey."
We take issue with counsel for appellant on this statement, which we respectfully submit is not borne out by the testimony of Mr. Brigantz.
Mr. Brigantz testified positively that he did not make his survey based on solar observations, but that he made the survey by taking the certified copy of the United States Governmental field notes which he obtained from the Jackson, Mississippi, office of the Land Commissioner and from the field notes ran the survey according to the "ties," consisting of streams, which were shown on the field notes from the Jackson, Mississippi, office, and which enabled him after making recognizance lines surveys to definitely locate the governmental corner of several of the sections of land involved in this survey which were the original corners established by the United States surveyors at the time the original survey was made.
Counsel for appellant argued that the "ties" which were used by appellee's surveyor, and which he found upon the original field notes, could not be accurate for the reason that these streams have changed their course over the past one hundred years, and he cited an authority which is in line with his argument, but when you read the opinion of the Court you will find that it is not applicable to the facts in this case for this reason. The proof shows that these little streams were located in hilly country and not out in flat bottom lands, and it is a well recognized fact that when streams are in hilly country instead of spreading out and changing their course, the tendency is to dig deeper in the ground rather than spreading out, and as a matter of fact that is what happened in this hilly country where this survey was made.
Mr. Brigantz in locating his lines used the references to the streams, and according to his testimony they checked out in distances as called for by the field notes. There is no evidence in the record to contradict his statement in this regard. The county surveyor who made the survey for the defendant did not attempt to locate any government corner, but merely started at a corner which had been recognized by the landowners in that particular location as being a corner, and he could not testify that such corner was located as located in the original survey.
As was well stated in the evidence by Mr. Brigantz for the appellee, that when the original survey was made by the United States Government surveyors, they realized the magnetic survey was not strictly accurate on account of the variation from time to time of the magnetic pole. And, therefore, in order that in the future the corners of the sections as established by them were "tied" down by monuments, such as trees or streams or large rocks, and when streams were used as monuments the distances were given on the original field notes from the corner of the section to the point where these streams crossed the lines of the sections which the government surveyors established. And these "ties", to-wit, the streams were what were largely used by the surveyor for the appellee. And none of these "ties" to the streams were copied into the field notes which were on file in the chancery clerk's office of Monroe County, Mississippi. Therefore, Mr. Cox, the surveyor for the appellant, truthfully answered that he did not find any such "ties" on the copy which he found in the chancery clerk's office of Monroe County, Mississippi, and he did not at any time have the field notes from the Jackson, Mississippi, office, to which the surveyor for the appellee had access.
Where a boundary line separating two persons' property runs through what is known as "wild land", and where such boundary line is not marked out so that it is possible to determine where the actual governmental line was laid out by the governmental surveyors, and where the corners of the sections of land are not marked; and where neither party has obtained title to the land by adverse possession, and where there had been no agreed boundary line between the respective parties, then the law says that the line and corners originally run by the governmental surveyors and the corners established by them must control when it becomes necessary to show the boundary line between the two parties.
The original corners and lines made by the United States surveyors and by which the land was sold by the United States are the true boundaries, and no line which varies from these can be established, except by consent of the owners. See May v. Baskin, 12 S. M. 428. See also Goff v. Avent, 122 Miss. 86; Anderson-Tully Co. v. Campbell, 193 Miss. 790, 10 So.2d 445; Burton v. Butler, 107 Miss. 344, 65 So. 459; Pope v. Ivy, 117 Miss. 501; Bonney v. McLeod, 38 Miss. 393.
Since all of the monuments, such as witness trees, have long ago disappeared from the lands involved in this lawsuit, the sole remaining method of establishing the original corners of the sections and the boundary lines of the various sections can only be determined from the other monuments in the original field notes, which in the case at bar are the references to the "ties" made by the government surveyors as to where those various creeks or streams were located on the ground and where they crossed the boundary lines of the sections showing the distances from such points of crossing to an established corner; so to enable the surveyor to establish the corner from such "ties" and distances.
We are familiar with Sec. 1738, Code 1942 as to surveyor's certificate; that is, county surveyor's certificate being prima facie evidence of the facts connected with and pertinent to the certificate therein contained.
But the courts have never held that where the county surveyor in making the survey was unable to locate any original governmental corner or any original lines of the sections involved in the survey, that the survey was worth anything. And as in the case at bar, the county surveyor admitted he never located any original government corners, and therefore his survey was worthless as against the survey made by appellee's surveyor; and the Court has a perfect right and should disregard this survey by the county surveyor, as set out in the cases heretofore cited.
T. Frank Durrett, as complainant, filed a bill of complaint in the chancery court of Monroe County against W.W. Boyd, as defendant, to establish the true boundary lines between lands owned by the complainant and adjoining lands owned by the defendant, all of which were fully described in the bill of complaint. The complainant also alleged in his bill that the defendant had gone on the lands of the complainant and had cut valuable timber, and the complainant asked for damages for the alleged trespass and also for the statutory penalty for the wrongful cutting of the timber.
The chancellor, after hearing the testimony, rendered a memorandum opinion in favor of complainant and entered a decree establishing the boundary lines according to the survey made by the complainant's surveyor, B.G. Brigance; and the chancellor awarded damages to the complainant in the sum of $5,400, which was the amount fixed as the value of the timber cut by the defendant on the lands owned by the complainant. The chancellor denied the complainant's claim for the statutory penalty for the wrongful cutting of the trees. From that decree the defendant prosecutes this appeal.
The lands owned by the respective parties are timbered lands, and no question of adverse possession is involved in the boundary line controversy.
The record on this appeal shows the following facts, which are practically undisputed:
Both Durrett and Boyd were the owners of valuable tracts of timber lands in Monroe County. Durrett was the owner of all of Section 30, Township 13, Range 17 West, except the South Half of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section; and Durrett was also the owner of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, in the same Township and Range. Boyd was the owner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, in Township 13, Range 17 West, and also the 40-acre tract of land described as the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 13, Range 18 West. Boyd's 40-acre tract of land described as the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30 was bounded on the north and east by Durrett's lands in Section 30; and Boyd's 40-acre tract of land described as the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, was bounded on the north by Durrett's land in Section 30, and on the east by Durrett's land in Section 32. Boyd's 40-acre tract of land in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 13, Range 18 West, was separated from Durrett's land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 13, Range 17 West, by the range line between Ranges 17 and 18.
Boyd was engaged in the sawmill business, and Durrett was engaged in the lumber business. In 1947 Boyd decided to cut the timber on the tracts of land owned by him, which adjoined the above described tracts of land owned by Durrett; and Boyd employed J.F. Cox, the county surveyor, to run the lines for him and notified Durrett that Cox would run the lines for him. Durrett requested his son-in-law, Otis Cowan, to accompany the surveying party while the lines were being run; but Durrett took no part otherwise in the survey. Cox ran the lines during the month of December, 1947. Cowan was present during the two days the lines were being run, and reported the facts to his father-in-law. Neither Durrett nor Cowan made any complaint about the location of the lines according to Cox's survey until sometime during the spring of 1950, when Boyd started to cut the timber on the 40-acre tract of land owned by him in the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 13, Range 18 West. Boyd's timber cutters cut the timber up to the range line, as established by Cox's survey, whereupon Durrett made complaint and sent for Cox; and an argument ensued between Durrett and Boyd concerning the location of the true line between Boyd's 40-acre tract and Durrett's land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 30. Boyd then advised Durrett that he would be willing to have another surveyor run the line, provided Durrett would agree to have the line run immediately. But Durrett did not agree to this; and Boyd heard nothing more from Durrett about the matter until January, 1951, when Boyd resumed his timber cutting operations on the 40-acre tract, and Durrett's son had Boyd arrested on a charge of trespassing on Durrett's land. The case was tried in a justice of the peace court and Boyd was acquitted.
In the meantime, Durrett had employed B.G. Brigance, a qualified engineer and surveyor of long experience, who resided in another county, to run the lines for him. Brigance made his survey sometime during the latter part of the year 1950. The only line in dispute at the time Brigance was employed by Durrett to make the survey was the range line between Boyd's 40-acre tract in the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 13, Range 18 West, and Durrett's land lying immediately east of that 40-acre tract. But, when Brigance's survey had been completed, it showed a substantial difference in the location of the other lines which Cox had run. Brigance's survey established the range line approximately 93 feet west of the line marked out by Cox; and Brigance's survey showed that Boyd had encroached upon Durrett's lands to the extent of approximately seven acres in all.
Much testimony was taken during the hearing before the chancellor. But the most important testimony was that of the two surveyors, B.G. Brigance, who testified as a witness for Durrett, and J.F. Cox, who testified as a witness for Boyd.
Inasmuch as Cox's survey was made in December, 1947, while Brigance's survey was made two years later, we shall give a summary of Cox's testimony first, although Brigance testified first as a witness for the complainant during the trial.
Cox testified that he had been employed by Boyd to run the lines for him in 1947, and that he had used a transit, a compass and a 100-ft. tape in making the survey, and that the lines were run by magnetic variation. He stated that he had used the field notes and distances shown by the records in the chancery clerk's office. He stated that he began at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, which was the northeast corner of Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract (the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30). Cox stated that he had made a survey of Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract in 1945; and for that reason he used Derwood Boyd's northeast corner as a starting point. Cox stated that he ran the lines between the 40-acre tract of land owned by W.W. Boyd in Section 30 and the land owned by Durrett in Section 30, and the line between the land owned by W.W. Boyd in Section 31 and the land owned by Durrett in Section 32; and that he then ran the line from the northwest corner of Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract to the northwest corner of Section 30. This last mentioned line was a part of the range line which separated W.W. Boyd's 40-acre tract in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 13, Range 18 West, from Durrett's land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 13, Range 17 West.
Brigance testified that he had made his survey for Durrett during the year 1950. He stated that he had obtained copies of the field notes covering the original government survey from the office of the chancery clerk of Monroe County, but had found these notes incomplete; and that he had then obtained from the office of the State Land Commissioner, at Jackson, Mississippi, copies of other field notes found among the records of that office, which contained references to streams not shown in the field notes found in the office of the chancery clerk. He stated that the original government survey had been made about 1830, and that none of the trees referred to in the field notes were still standing. He stated that he first ran reconnaissance lines with the aid of a transit and a magnetic needle, and that he then undertook to tie these lines into the stream references contained in the field notes which he had obtained from the State Land Office. He stated that in his opinion the streams referred to in the field notes had not changed their courses since the government survey was made. By the use of the stream references contained in the field notes he succeeded in establishing the southeast corner of Section 30 and the northwest corner of Section 30. With these two points definitely established, he was able to relocate the range line between Ranges 17 and 18, as that line was projected northwardly and southwardly from the northwest corner of Section 30.
Brigance stated that he found at the northwest corner of Section 30 an old pine knot, which had been pointed out to him by Durrett as a recognized corner marker. He stated that there were old fence scars and blazes on trees along the range line running northwardly from the old pine knot, which indicated a recognized boundary line between Section 19, Township 13, Range 17 West, and Section 24, Township 13, Range 18 West, and he identified several photographs which were offered in evidence to show the markings along this line.
Brigance stated that, after he had set up what he regarded as the true position of the line, he took a solar observation and determined the true azimuth in regard to the true position of the line, which automatically gave him the true bearing. On cross examination Brigance stated that the range line as established by him had a bearing of south 0 degrees 6 minutes east or north 0 degrees 6 minutes west. He stated that he did not use a magnetic needle to run by, and that he used a stadia measure instead of a chain for the purpose of measuring distances. He admitted that he had made little effort to find out from local residents anything about established corners or recognized markers.
Several witnesses testified for the complainant concerning the location of the range line running northwardly from the old pine knot referred to above. Huey Goodman and Mann Goodman, who owned land in Section 19, lying immediately north of Section 30, testified that they had employed Cox to run the lines of their 80-acre tract in 1946 or 1947, and that they had pointed out to Cox the old pine knot, "where we all corner." Cooper Cantrell testified that he owned land in Section 24, Township 13, Range 18 West, which lies immediately west of Section 19, Township 13, Range 17 West, and that the range line constituted his east boundary line. Cantrell stated that the range line had been run by Gordon Green, the county surveyor, about forty years before the date of the trial, and that the line thus established had been recognized as the true line since that time, and that fences had been erected along that line by the abutting landowners. A.D. Simms testified that he had known the pine knot as the corner of the four sections since 1898.
Durrett, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, stated that he had known the land in Section 30 since 1905, and that during all that time the pine knot referred to above had been recognized as the northwest corner of the Section. On cross-examination Durrett admitted, however, that Brigance's range line running southwardly from the pine knot to the northwest corner of Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract in the Southwest Quarter of Section 30 had cut off a strip of an open field which belonged to the G.C. Boyd place lying west of the range line; and he admitted that the line that Brigance had run between his land and Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract ran through the dining room of Derwood Boyd's dwelling house, which had been erected by Derwood Boyd's grandfather. Durrett admitted that he had waited more than two years after Cox had completed his survey before making complaint to W.W. Boyd about Cox's survey or the location of the line between Durrett's land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 30 and Boyd's 40-acre tract in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25; and he admitted that he had never expressed any dissatisfaction with the line run by Cox south of the railroad until after Brigance had made his survey.
The chancellor found that there was no agreement between Boyd and Durrett to have the lines run by the county surveyor, and that Durrett was not bound by the Cox survey. The chancellor found that Cox in making his survey did not attempt to locate any government corner, but merely started at a corner which had been recognized by the landowners in that particular area and assumed to be a correctly established corner, and that the lines run by Cox had not been located with such accuracy as to warrant the approval of Cox's survey. The chancellor found that the lines run by Brigance, which checked with the stream references contained in the field notes obtained from the State Land Office, had been correctly located according to the government survey; and the chancellor entered a decree establishing those lines as the true boundary lines between the lands owned by Boyd and the lands owned by Durrett.
The main point argued by the appellant's attorney on this appeal is that the chancellor erred in his finding that the lines established by the Brigance survey had been correctly established. The appellant contends that the original survey of the lands had been made by the method of magnetic declination, with the aid of a compass and needle, which was the only method of surveying in use at the time of the original survey, and that the lines established by the original survey could be reestablished only by that method; that according to Brigance's own testimony he had determined the true bearing of the lines not by the method of magnetic declination but by solar observation; and that, for that reason, if for no other, the court should have rejected Brigance's survey, and should have approved Cox's survey.
After a careful study of the record, however, we think that the findings of the chancellor are supported by the weight of the evidence; and we are unable to say that the lines located by Brigance were not correctly located as the true lines established by the original survey.
The general rule relating to the location or reestablishment of boundary lines, where no question of adverse possession is involved, is stated in 8 Am. Jur. p. 792, Boundaries, par. 66, as follows:
(Hn 1) "In locating and running the boundary lines of lots or tracts of land of private owners, reference is to be had to the calls in the grant and to the field notes carried into the grant or the map or plan with reference to which the conveyance was made; and if there is no ambiguity the land must be located and the lines run according to the description of the conveyance. * * * Accordingly, in restoring lost lines and corners, visible and actual landmarks are to be preferred, but if they cannot be ascertained resort must then be had to courses and distances. All lands are supposed to be actually surveyed and the intention of the grant is to convey the land according to the actual survey. It is, therefore, said that the real purpose of the inquiry is to follow the steps of the surveyor on the ground, and all calls will be construed with this in mind."
In the early case of May v. Baskin, 12 Smedes M. 428, this Court said: "The original survey fixed the rights of the parties. The government sold the land according to that survey, and conveyed it to the purchasers. No line could be afterwards run without the consent of all interested, which would vary the rights thus acquired."
In the case of Bonney v. McLeod, 38 Miss. 393, the Court held that the true boundaries of land once owned by the United States are the lines established by the survey made by the government, under which it was sold; and wherever these lines are obvious, they must be followed, notwithstanding the government survey may have been made upon an assumed, or a wrong magnetic variation.
(Hn 2) Cox and Brigance both testified that the tree monuments referred to in the field notes of the original survey had long since disappeared. Only the streams which were referred to in the field notes obtained from the State Land Office remained as actual landmarks to aid the surveyor in his effort to relocate the lines run by the government surveyors; and these streams were not referred to in the field notes found in the chancery clerk's office, which Cox used in making his survey. (Hn 3) Cox admitted that he did not locate any original government corners when he made his survey, and that he could not swear positively that the corners shown on his map were the true government corners. In view of these facts it cannot be said that the chancellor was in error in holding that the lines run by Cox had not been run with such degree of certainty and accuracy as to warrant the approval of Cox's survey.
In the case of Burton v. Buttler, 107 Miss. 344, 65 So. 459, which was an action in ejectment, wherein the appellee had relied on a survey to establish the dividing line between his land and the land of the appellant, the Court in reversing a judgment for the plaintiff said: "From the testimony of the surveyor, it does not appear that he located an established corner or monument of the original survey made by the United States surveyor as a starting point in his survey. It cannot be said that he had a sufficiently established corner or place from which to run his lines. The line, therefore, run by him was not with such degree of certainty and accuracy as to constitute it as the true and correct dividing line between the properties of appellant and appellee. Newman v. Foster, 3 How. 383, 34 Am. Dec. 98; May v. Baskin, 12 Smedes M. 428; Bonney v. McLeod, 38 Miss. 393; Reinert v. Brunt, 42 Kan. 43, 21 P. 807."
Brigance testified that the stream monuments referred to in the field notes obtained from the State Land Office enabled him to establish definitely the two section corners mentioned above, and that the corners thus established checked with the streams on the ground. The northwest corner of Section 30 was a point on the range line, and as located by Brigance checked with the range line running northwardly between Section 19, Township 13, Range 17 West, and Section 24, Township 13, Range 18 West, which had been recognized by abutting landowners for many years. With the two corners of Section 30 thus definitely located, Brigance testified that he was able to relocate the range line running southwardly from the northwest corner of Section 30 to the northwest corner of Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract.
Brigance stated that it was not necessary for him to make the solar observations to determine the correctness of his lines, but that the solar observations were made to establish the true bearings of the lines for future reference only. He admitted that the old surveys had been made by the use of a compass, with magnetic variations; but he denied that it was necessary to make use of magnetic variations for the purpose of finding the lines established by the old surveyors. He stated that a solar observation provided a safer method for determining the true location of lines than the use of the magnetic needle.
We find nothing in the record to discredit the accuracy of Brigance's survey. It is true that the range line which he had established south of the Frisco railroad right-of-way ran through the edge of an open field which belonged to the G.C. Boyd place lying west of the range line, and that the line which he had run between Durrett's land in Section 30 and Derwood Boyd's 80-acre tract ran several feet south of the dividing line which had been recognized by the landowners since the time of Derwood Boyd's grandfather. But these variations may signify mistakes on the part of the landowners in that immediate area as to the true location of the section corners established by the original survey. No attempt was made by the appellant to show that the section corners or the range line established by Brigance's survey did not check with the stream monuments referred to in the field notes obtained from the State Land Office or other established markers, or with the courses and distances set forth in the field notes. The fact that the surveyor made solar observations to establish the true bearings of the lines for future reference, or that he used a stadia for the measurement of distances, instead of a chain, did not invalidate the survey. The question which the chancellor had to decide was, whether the lines established by Brigance's survey had been correctly established according to the original survey.
We think that the evidence was sufficient to justify the findings of the chancellor, and the decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Hall, Holmes, and Arrington, JJ., concur.