{ "id": 8660308, "name": "W. J. ECHERD and H. F. ECHERD v. E. J. JOHNSON et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Echerd v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1900-04-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "409", "last_page": "412", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. 409" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "100 N. C., 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650331 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/100/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N. C., 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683120 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/88/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N. C., 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277995 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/83/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 N. C., 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/100/0212-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 340, "char_count": 5861, "ocr_confidence": 0.39, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.002059814313486e-08, "percentile": 0.503310424661824 }, "sha256": "7cbec30b4abfcb3efdd4c7929ad920f63563dcd10f88188b5700a2ce3f45c37d", "simhash": "1:d516a104a895b3ea", "word_count": 1069 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:28.883277+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "W. J. ECHERD and H. F. ECHERD v. E. J. JOHNSON et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Faircloth, C. J.\nThis is a processioning proceeding under the Act of 1893, chapter 22. The line to' be located runs practically north and south, the plaintiff\u2019s land on the east side and defendant\u2019s on the west side.\nAfter the pleadings were filed with the clerk, an order of survey was made, and the surveyor was ordered to run said line according to the contention of both parties and to report the same with' a map to the Court. This was done, and on the trial in the Superior Court this issue was submitted: \u201cIs the line'on the map, beginning at red 2 and running to red 5, the true boundary line between the lands of the plaintiffs and defendants?\u201d The jury answered, \u201cYes.\u201d A similar issue as to defendants\u2019 contention, from blue 2 to blue 10 was submitted, but not answered.\nNumerous witnesses were examined and deeds were introduced, including a deed from John Bradburn to Frances Dorset, in 1797, in which this is the description: \u201cBeginning at a larg;e pine tree in Bradburn\u2019s line, thence Avest 160-poles to two small post-oaks.\u201d The beginning corner (l'on the map) is agreed to, and the question turns om the location of the \u201ctwo small post-oaks.\u201d The two old stump places, or holes, claimed by the parties, are about three and a half poles apart, one noted on the plot red 2, (plaintiffs\u2019), and blue 2 (defendants\u2019). There was evidence tending each\nway. Defendant asked for this instruction.: \u201cThat from a known point course and distance must govern, unless there is some natural object called for in the deed that is more certain; and in this case point 1 being admitted and the natural object called for being uncertain, the comer should be at the end of 160 poles west from 1.\u201d In .lieu thereof his Honor told the jury that the post-oak called for was a natural object, and that the plaintiff claimed that it was at red 2, and the defendant at blue 2 \u2014 that there was evidence tending to show that there were two oak stumps, and it was the duty of the jury to find from the evidence which natural object was the proper one, and if they could not from the evidence locate the natural object, then course and distance would govern.\nThe prayer could not be given, because the jury, upon the evidence, have found and made the natural object certain, which controls, and because the Court would have to find as a fact or assume that the natural object could not be located by the jury from the evidence. That has been the province of the jury from a time where the memory runs not, and is now considered \u201cfamiliar learning.\u201d The natural object or boundary is not to be found alone by construing the deed. It may be aided by parol proof and by reputation. Huffman v. Walker, 83 N. C., 411; Strickland v. Draughan, 88 N. C., 315.\nThe Court decides what the boundaries are, and the jury finds where they are. If the natural object or boundary can not be found or located; course and distance will control. Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. C., 212.\nHis Honor instructed the jury that the burden of showing that the red line was the true line (leading from 2 red) was upon the plaintiff, and if he had by a preponderance of the evidence satisfied them that that was the true line, they should answer the first issue, \u201cYes;\u201d aud in that event they need not consider the second issue; also if they were not so satisfied, they should answer the first issue, \u201cN>.\u201d\nHolmes v. Valley Co., 121 N. C., 410, cited by the defendant, does not apply. In that case there was no effort to establish boundary lines by course and distance; by marked trees and corners, or by calls for natural objects, but it was an effort to identify and locate the first station by evidence, without any chops or signs leading to or from the place, with an imperfect description in the deed. We have discovered no error in the trial below.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Faircloth, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. A. G. McIntosh, for appellants.", "Messrs. B. Z. & F. A. Linney, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. J. ECHERD and H. F. ECHERD v. E. J. JOHNSON et al.\n(Decided April 24, 1900.)\nProcessioning Proceeding Before the Cleric \u2014 Act of 1893, Chapter 22 \u2014 Course and Distance \u2014 Natural Object.\n1. In running a line from an agreed corner, if a natural object, as a tree, is called for in the deed, and it or the spot where it stood can be located, the line must go to it; if it can not be located, course and distance will control.\n2. The natural object, or boundary, is not to be found alone by construing the deed; it may be aided by parol proof and by reputation.\n3. Where the natural object called for was a post-oak, the plaintiff claiming it was at red 2, on the map, and the defendant at blue 2, and there was evidence tending to show that there were two oak stumps, it was the duty of the jury to find from the evidence which natural object was the proper one, and if they could not from the evidence locate the natural object, course and distance would govern.\n4. The Court decides what the boundaries are, and the jury finds where they are. If the natural object or boundary can not be found or located, course and distance will control. Redmon v. S#epp, 100 N. C., 212.\n\u25a05. The burden of showing that the red line was the true line (leading from 2 red) by a preponderance of the evidence, was upon the plaintiff. '\nSpecial PboceediNg to\u2019 establish lines, heard on appeal from the Clerk by Shaw, at Fall Term, 1899, of Alex-aNdee Superior Court.\nThe County Surveyor in obedience, to the order of court, ran the dividing line between the parties, according to the contention of each, and reported a map of his survey.\nThe dividing line, as indicated, ran north and south, the plaintiffs\u2019 land lying east of it and the defendant\u2019s lying west-. The issues, contentious of the parties and ruling of the Court appear in the opinion.\nThere was a verdict- for the plaintiff, and from the judgment in his favor the defendant appealed. A copy of the map is subjoined.\nMr. A. G. McIntosh, for appellants.\nMessrs. B. Z. & F. A. Linney, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0409-01", "first_page_order": 447, "last_page_order": 452 }