From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Witherspoon v. Blanks

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1799
1 N.C. 157 (N.C. Super. 1799)

Opinion

Spring Term, 1799.

If a natural boundary be called for in a grant, a line is to be extended to it, disregarding distance.

The principle question of law arising in this case was whether a line shall be extended so as to reach a natural boundary called for.

Badger for the plaintiff.

Graham for the defendant.


The line in controversy, when run to the end of the distance called for, will not reach Cypress Creek; where, by the patent it is said to terminate; but to reach that place, it must run three times the distance called for. In all such cases the invariable rule is to disregard the distance; and to proceed with the line in the direction called for until it shall interest the creek or other natural boundary.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

NOTE. — See the cases referred to in the note to Bradford v. Hill, 2 N.C. 22, and the note to Person v. Roundtree, ante, 69.

Cited: Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N.C. 573.

(158)


Summaries of

Witherspoon v. Blanks

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1799
1 N.C. 157 (N.C. Super. 1799)
Case details for

Witherspoon v. Blanks

Case Details

Full title:WITHERSPOON AND WIFE v. BLANKS. — Tayl., 110

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1799

Citations

1 N.C. 157 (N.C. Super. 1799)

Citing Cases

Batson v. Bell

The law presumes there is less likelihood of error in the call for a known and fixed point than a call or…

Allen v. Cates

This principle finds expression in the rule that a call for a natural object, permanently located will…