{
  "id": 8527977,
  "name": "PEARL GOSS, BRENDA OEHLER, and CHARLES RONALD OEHLER v. SAM STIDHAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goss v. Stidhams",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8323DC230",
  "first_page": "773",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 773"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 94",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "95"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624635
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "333"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0332-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 396,
    "char_count": 7730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.789971398195007e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41545105525457277
    },
    "sha256": "8a3a4ca7b0b76da59649018c350ea235bb624471c7602bb56f49f08dcfb97f82",
    "simhash": "1:9fe2e243a009e404",
    "word_count": 1352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Whichard concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PEARL GOSS, BRENDA OEHLER, and CHARLES RONALD OEHLER v. SAM STIDHAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nAlthough this case was filed as an action in trespass, by stipulation of the parties, the case was tried \u201cstrictly as a boundary dispute,\u201d the plaintiffs and defendant disagreeing as to the proper beginning point, and the continuation, of their common boundary line. The parties further stipulated that the relevant deeds to plaintiffs and defendant were to be admitted into evidence; that the court-ordered survey performed by county surveyor, Bobby J. Oliver, was to be admitted into evidence; that the object denominated \u201cSugar Tree\u201d on the right middle portion of the survey is accurately located on the plat, and is the sugar tree described in plaintiffs\u2019 two deeds; and that the \u201cdashed area [on the survey] is an actually existing old roadbed.\u201d\nFollowing a bench trial, the trial judge entered judgment awarding plaintiff all of the land in the dispute, and the defendant appeals. Nine of the defendant\u2019s twelve arguments on appeal concern evidentiary matters. Defendant\u2019s other three arguments concern whether the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law is supported by the evidence. We need not decide the evidentiary matters, since we find no evidence to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law.\nIn the decretal portion of its judgment, the trial court ordered, adjudged and decreed that \u201cthe boundary line between the parties lies in the middle of the abandoned old road as shown on court\u2019s exhibit #1 [the survey].\u201d Before setting forth the findings of fact and conclusion of law which the trial court used to reach its result, we set forth the descriptions of the land involved in this dispute as contained in the deeds of the respective parties. The relevant description in plaintiffs exhibit 2 reads as follows:\nBEGINNING on a sugar tree at the old road, and running a westerly direction with the said old road to Wiley Elliott\u2019s corner; then a southern direction, with Wiley Elliott\u2019s line, to two red oaks on top of the mountain; then an easterly direction with the extreme height of the ridge with Walter Stans-berry\u2019s line and Elihu Ham\u2019s line to a hickory corner; then a northern direction a straight line with Drury Greer\u2019s line to the BEGINNING, containing 14 acres, more or less.\nDefendant\u2019s land is described in defendant\u2019s exhibit 10, as follows:\nBEGINNING at a watergap on Little Horse Creek in the old Drewey Greer line, running an eastward course with the Drewey Greer line to the old road, Drewey Greer corner; then with the old road to a gate, R. L. Ham\u2019s corner; then with R. L. Ham\u2019s line to the creek; then with the creek and Clora Elliott\u2019s line to the BEGINNING, containing 2 acres, more or less.\nAll the evidence shows, and no one contends otherwise, that the position of the Drury (sometimes spelled \u201cDrewery\u201d) Greer corner, referred to in defendant\u2019s deed, is marked by the same sugar tree that is the common corner of, and beginning corner in, plaintiffs deed.\nConsidering these deeds, the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact:\nThe contentions of the parties have been surveyed by Bobby J. Oliver, Registered Surveyor, and are shown on Court\u2019s Exhibit #1, which is a part of the record in this case. There was at one time an old road as shown on Exhibit 1 running between the 2 dash lines from points A to C and B to D as shown on said exhibit. At one time this road was apparently in use but the evidence does not indicate whether it was a public road. At some point in time the road was abandoned. . . . The corner of the property lines for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is at a sugar tree as shown on said exhibit, which tree is on the south bank above said old road. The calls in the Plaintiffs\u2019 deed, refer to \u2018running a westerly direction with the said old road,\u2019 and the calls in the Defendant\u2019s deeds refer to \u2018then with the old road to a gate.\u2019 None of the calls in either the Plaintiffs\u2019 deeds or the Defendant\u2019s deeds provide for any courses and distances or provide for any further elaboration as to where along the old road their lines run.\nFrom these findings of fact, the trial court concluded \u201cas a matter of law that the boundary line between the parties runs in the middle of the abandoned old road as shown on Court\u2019s Exhibit #1, regardless of the fact that the corner tree lies above said old road on the south bank of the road.\u201d\nDefendant implicitly suggests that we would have to engage in judicial alchemy in order to uphold the trial court\u2019s judgment, arguing thusly: \u201cTo conceive of such a notion in order to establish the starting point for the next boundary line is illogical and without merit. . . .\u201d Countering with his contention that it takes no amount of gymnastic skills to sustain the trial court\u2019s conclusion, plaintiff argues as follows:\n[T]he trial court\u2019s determination that the boundary line would extend to the center of the road was correct. \u2018It can be stated as a general rule that a call for a monument as a boundary line in a deed will convey the title of the land to the center of the monument if it has width.\u2019 J. Webster, Webster\u2019s Real Estate Law In North Carolina \u00a7 188 (Rev. Ed. 1981).\nAn example of the general rule as cited by Webster, is the case of White v. Woodard, 227 N.C. 332, 333, 42 S.E. 2d 94, 95 (1947). In White, the Supreme Court of North Carolina stated, \u2018It is generally accepted that where a line is to run to a stream or to \u201ca stake on the stream,\u201d and then with the stream, the intention is to extend the line to the middle of the stream as the true boundary, unless by the language employed the contrary appears.\u2019\nTherefore, since the Plaintiffs\u2019 deed called for \u2018a sugar tree at the old road and running in a westerly direction with the said old road\u2019 (Plaintiffs\u2019 Exhibit #2, stipulated to on page 8 of the Record), the trial court was correct in finding that the boundary line between the parties runs in the middle of the abandoned old road.\nPlaintiff cites good law. His reliance on the cited cases is misplaced, however. The facts are different. In this case, the tree, not the road, is the \u201cmonument\u201d with width. Since the sugar tree is the common corner of the parties and their respective deeds then describe a call running with the said old road, the trial court\u2019s conclusion that \u201cthe boundary line between the parties runs in the middle of the abandoned old road as shown on Court\u2019s Exhibit #1, regardless of the fact that the corner tree lies above said old road on the south bank of the road\u201d is not supported by the findings of fact or the evidence. Rather, the evidence is clear that defendant\u2019s boundary line crosses the road to the sugar tree and then runs with the southern edge of the road.\nBased on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the matter is remanded for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Arnold and Whichard concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William F. Lopp for defendant appellant.",
      "Siskind & Lonon, by John P. Siskind, for plaintiff appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PEARL GOSS, BRENDA OEHLER, and CHARLES RONALD OEHLER v. SAM STIDHAMS\nNo. 8323DC230\n(Filed 5 June 1984)\nBoundaries 8 15.1\u2014 judgment in boundary dispute unsupported by evidence\nIn an action tried as a boundary dispute, a trial court\u2019s conclusion that \u201cthe boundary line between the parties runs in the middle of the abandoned old road\u201d was not supported by the findings of fact or the evidence. Rather, the evidence was clear that defendant\u2019s boundary line crossed the road to a tree and then ran with the southern edge of the road.\nAppeal by defendant from Osborne, Judge. Judgment entered 24 September 1982 in District Court, Ashe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 1984.\nWilliam F. Lopp for defendant appellant.\nSiskind & Lonon, by John P. Siskind, for plaintiff appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0773-01",
  "first_page_order": 805,
  "last_page_order": 809
}
