{ "id": 8659209, "name": "WILSON LUMBER AND MILLING COMPANY v. HUTTON & BOURBONNAIS COMPANY et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co.", "decision_date": "1912-05-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "445", "last_page": "452", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "159 N.C. 445" } ], "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": "48 N. C., 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2086673 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/48/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 N. C., 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682587 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/49/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272014 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N. C., 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "79 N. C., 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687354 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/79/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 N. C., 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277753 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/50/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. C., 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275109 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/44/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 N. C., 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696434 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/18/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 N. C., 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685452 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/18/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 N. C., 870", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654223 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/0870-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 N. C., 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2104337 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/23/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N. C., 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "116 N. C., 866", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273315 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N. C., 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690090 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "114 N. C., 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650851 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 W. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "35 W. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "7 N. C., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684318 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/7/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272003 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0537-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 732, "char_count": 16794, "ocr_confidence": 0.466, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.307358786754858e-07, "percentile": 0.6236492938391389 }, "sha256": "6e8567e0fd1224f0bd6b3f6098bf91861a97e134f55c62880975f6c37ab4f491", "simhash": "1:cd2ca6fd954a05e0", "word_count": 3025 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Brown, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of Clark, 0. J." ], "parties": [ "WILSON LUMBER AND MILLING COMPANY v. HUTTON & BOURBONNAIS COMPANY et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn a former appeal in this cause, reported in 152 N. C., 544, the facts will sufficiently appear to indicate the purport of the present decision. It was chiefly urged for error in the present trial that the court below had made unwarranted departure from the rulings made in the former opinion, by which the cause should be tried, and more especially in submitting the case on the position that if the \u201cDaniel Moore\u201d line and the \u201cJesse Gragg\u2019s line\u201d and the line of^John Crisp\u2019s own land, called for in defendant\u2019s grant and made two of the termini of the lines therein and the boundary of a third, \u201cwere known and established lines,\u201d they would control the calls by course and distance, also appearing in the grant.\nWe are of opinion, however, that the objection rests on an erroneous concept of the former decision. It is a settled principle with us in the law of boundary, that, when the line of another tract is definitely called for as one of the termini of a call in a grant or deed and this line is fixed and established, it will control a call by course and distance. Whitaker v. Cover 140 N. C., 280, and authorities cited. And where the line of another tract is the one called for and is sufficiently \u201cproved and established,\u201d the principle applies, whether such line is marked or unmarked. Campbell v. Branch, 49 N. C., 313; Corn v. McCrary, 48 N. C., 496. This position was fully recognized on the former appeal, and was well stated by the Chief Justice as follows: \u201cIt is true that the general rule is that course and distance must give way to a call for a natural boundary, and that the line of an adjacent tract, if well known and established, is a natural boundary. But this is because such natural boundary is usually considered more certain, being at a fixed and definite place, if 'established and known,\u2019 and therefore unchangeable and more likely to be the true call in the deed than course and distance, which may, by inadvertence, be incorrectly written down. The reason of the law is the\nlife thereof. Ratione cessante, cessat' ipsa lex. The rule of construction which ordinarily prefers the call for the boundary of another tract to course and distance is based upon the reason that the former .is usually more certain than the latter, and \u2022only applies when the boundary of the other tract is established and well known.\u201d\nOn that appeal, however, a majority of the Court were of opinion that the lines of adjacent tracts, called for and made the termini of two of the lines of defendant\u2019s grant and the boundary of a third, to wit, the Daniel Moore line and the Jesse Gragg line, and John Crisp\u2019s own line, were not sufficiently established to require or permit the application of the principle, and the calls by course and distance afforded the safer guide to a proper location. On the present trial, additional evidence was offered by defendant tending to show that the Daniel Moore line was a* well-known and established line, and there were also additional deeds and * testimony offered tending to show that the John Crisp line, referred to and made the last call of defendant\u2019s grant, was a well-recognized and established line or lines closing the survey and boundary as contended for and claimed by defendant. This .additional testimony, tending as it did to show that these lines of adjoining tracts, called for as termini and boundaries of defendant\u2019s grant, were sufficiently proved and established, was such as to permit and require that the question of location should be considered by the jury, on the principles referred to, and we find nothing in the charge of the court or in the other features of the trial which gives plaintiff any just ground of complaint. There is no error, and the judgment for defendant is affirmed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." }, { "text": "Clark, C. J.,\ndissenting: This case was before us, 152 N. C., 537, where the map is set out which shows the remarkable nature of the defendant\u2019s contention in this case. In accordance with that decision and its subsequent approval in the opinion by Hoke, J., in Bowen v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C., 369, there is error on the present appeal, for which there should be a new trial.\n\u201cThe reason of the law is the life thereof,\u201d and \u201cwhen the reason ceases, the law ceases.\u201d These two rules are.well recognized by sound common sense and must be observed to save the law from degenerating into mere technicality.\nAt common law it was held that when a natural boundary is called for it will control course and distance. In Cherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., 82, this principle was extended, owing to \u201cthe peculiar situation and circumstances of the country at that time,\u201d to hold that the line of an adjacent tract when called for should be treated as a natural boundary. The proposition is not true as a matter of fact. The line of another tract is not a natural boundary. It lacks much of being so, for it is artificial, not natural and unchangeable and unmistakable. Hence it should only be treated as such when in the nature of things it is more certain than the course and distance. It ought not to apply when, as in the present case, there is much else in the description which will make the true boundaries beyond question and when to apply the principle will negative the better evidence and be a practical denial of the proper result.\nIn the present case the patent was issued by the State to Crisp; under whom the defendant claims, for 50 acres, with a plat laid down as a parallelogram on the grant which describes the boundaries as running from the beginning (which is not disputed) \u201cN. 35 W. 100 poles to a stake in Daniel Moore\u2019s line; then W. 80 poles to a stake in Jesse Gragg\u2019s'line; then S. 35 E. 100 poles to a stake in his own line; thence E. with said line to the beginning.\u201d The defendant contends that the first line.should be extended to Daniel Moore\u2019s line, though this would make it 274 poles instead of \u201c100 poles,\u201d as stated in the grant; that instead of the second call in the grant \u201c80 poles ~W. to a stake in Jesse Gragg\u2019s line,\u201d the second line should be run S. 35 W. 319% poles to a corner of Jesse Gragg\u2019s line,\u201d though in so doing both course and distance are wide of the mark and the line would cross through two older surveys. The third line in the grant is \u201cS. 35 E. 100 poles to a stake in Crisp\u2019s own line,\u201d and the fourth line was \u201cand thence E. with said line to the beginning,\u201d which of course would be 80 poles. But if this third line is run according to the defendant\u2019s contention, it would cut in half another tract and would run 338 poles instead of 100 poles, as called for in the grant, and the fourth line, instead of being \u201ceast with said line to the beginning\u201d 80 poles, would run five different courses, aggregating 400 poles, to get back to the beginning..\nInstead of the 50 acres granted to Crisp, the defendant will get 100 acres, 650 of which the plaintiff has paid the State for and for only 50 of which the grantor of the defendant paid the State. It is in evidence- that the defendant has always listed this land for taxation under oath as 50 acres. To run the first line as the defendant contends, \u201cto a stake in Daniel Moore\u2019s line,\u201d not only disregards the limitation of 100 poles which is a part of the description of that line, but it totally disregards the second, third, and fourth lines; it disregards the patent'and gives the defendant fourteen times as much land as \u2022the State granted. It also disregards the plat laid down on the grant as required by the statute, and the fact that the description in the grant and the plat alike call for a parallelogram, and that the defendant\u2019s contention will give us a most irregular tract with eight sides instead of four, and whose boundaries will aggregate 1,313% poles instead of 360, as called for by the grant and plat. Such a reductio ad. dbsurdum is its own refutation.\nIt would be more certain \u2014 indeed, it would be absolutely certain \u2014 to start at the beginning and reverse the course and distance, which our decisions permit when greater certainty can be ascertained thereby (Norwood v. Crawford, 114 N. C., 513), though the Court does not favor reversing unless it is necessary to avoid a palpable mistake, as here, in running the course and distance in regular order. But, as was said in this case, 152 N. C., 541, \u201cWhen the plat, the courses and distances, and the acreage all correspond, as they do in this case, they are more certain than the wild result which would be obtained by departing from them in attempting to give the preference to the call for \u201ca stake in Daniel Moore\u2019s line\u201d when there was no actual survey, and the surveyor and grantee did not know where it was,\u201d as was palpably the case.\nOn that same page, 152 N. C., 541, this Court said: \u201cWhile acreage is usually postponed to other descriptions, there are cases in which the Court has held that it was a potent, if not a conclusive factor. It was so held in Cox v. Cox, 91 N. C., 256. In Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N. C., 137, it was held that the number of acres in some cases may have a controlling effect. In Peebles v. Graham, 128 N. C., 227, the Court 'says: 'The general rule is that the quantity of land stated to be conveyed will not be considered in determining locations or boundaries. But there is a well-known exception to this: \u201cWhere the location or boundary is doubtful, quantity becomes important. Brown v. House, 116 N. C., 866; Cox v. Cox, 91 N. C., 356.\u201d \u2019 The Court further said, quoting from Mayo v. Blount, 23 N. C., 283: A perfect description which fully ascertains the corpus is not to bo defeated by the addition of further and false descriptions.\u2019 Certainly, no stronger case for the application of this principle can be found than in this, where the courses and distances given in the grant of the tract, which was not actually surveyed, are found to agree exactly with the quantity of 50 acres described and conveyed, and with the plat attached to the grant, and where to discard them would increase the quantity of land to fourteen times that for which the State was paid.\u201d\nIn Brown v. House, 116 N. C., 866, the Court refused to extend a line to a stake in the boundaries of another tract when it would have increased the acreage only twice;\u2019 whereas, in this case, to do so would make the acreage fourteen times as much. On the rehearing in that case, 118 N. C., 870, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and cited Harry v. Graham, 18 N. C., 76. \u201cWhere the distance called for gave out 30 poles short of the line of the other tract, the Court refused to extend the line 30 poles and held that it must terminate at the end of the distance called for.\u201d It also cited Carson v. Burnett, 18 N. C., 546, which held that \u201cThe course and distance called for must control unless there is another call more definite and certain than course and distance,\u201d and cited Kissam v. Gaylord, 44 N. C., 116; Spruill v. Davenport, ib., 134; Cansler v. Fite, 50 N. C., 424, and Mizell v. Simmons, 79 N. C., 182, all to the same effect.\nIn Mizell.v. Simmons, 79 N. C., 190, -where the call was \u201ceast,\u201d which was. palpably erroneous, the'Court followed the rest of the description and read \u201cwest.\u201d So, in this case, the Court should omit the palpable misdescription of a part of the first line, \u201cto a stake in Daniel Moore\u2019s line,\u201d and take the rest of the description of that first line, \u201c100 poles\u201d plus the description in the second line, \u201c80 poles W. to .a stake in Jesse Gragg\u2019s line,\u201d plus the description of the third line, \u201cthen S. 35 E. 100 poles to a stake in Crisp\u2019s line,\u201d and plus the description of the fourth, \u201cthen east with Crisp\u2019s line\u201d to the beginning, and the acreage of 50 acres and the plat as laid down in the grant, and from these establish the land which was actually granted, for all of these are certain, and the erroneous part of the description in the first line, \u201cto a stake in Daniel Moore\u2019s line,\u201d is as palpably erroneous as writing \u201ceast\u201d when it should have been \u201cwest.\u201d\nThere is a maxim in war, \u201cNot to leave an armed fort in the rear without masking it or thking it.\u201d At the battle of Ger-mantown, \u201cChew\u2019s House,\u201d a stone building, was taken possession of by a small body of the enemy\u2019s infantry, perhaps half a company, when their army was in full retreat. One of the American generals insisted on applying the above maxim of war and halted our advancing line-to take the \u201cfort.\u201d The enemy rallied and the American cause lost a splendid victory and our independence was delayed several years thereby. To apply the above maxim of the land law, which is useful in appropriate cases, to the facts of this case with the most remarkable results which would follow, is to discredit the rule itself and will call for its abrogation altogether. It is merely a judicial opinion as to the weight of evidence. If held and understood, in this case, as an iron-bound rule of such devastating importance as to take. precedence of and. overthrow all other description that may be far more material and conducive to a correct result and admitting of no exception, this will not make for the ascertainment, but for the denial of the true boundary in all cases where there is more certain evidence. This is to make a judicial opinion as to the weight a jury should give to evidence an irrebuttable rule admitting of no exceptions. Upon the state of facts in this case the true rule is, as was laid down by us, 152 N. C., 537, and which has been reaffirmed by Hoke, J., speaking for a unanimous Court, in Bowen v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C., 369, where he says that this rule \u201cis never departed from unless accompanying data and relevant facts make it perfectly clear that its application would lead to an erroneous conclusion, as in the recent case of Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 152 N. C., 537.\u201d After the facts of this case have thus been twice pronounced as not requiring the application of this rule, it ought not now to be held that they do require the application of the rule, notwithstanding the results above summed up.\nIt is to be doubted if in all the books of the law there can be found a single ease where an arbitrary rule as to the weight to be given one description in a deed, which was expressed by judicial decision and not by statute, as a matter of convenience and for the better ascertainment of the truth, is upheld as irre-buttable and admitting of no exception whatever, even when its application will be to contradict all the other boundaries set out, and will increase the acreage fourteen-fold, and will reject entirely the plat which by statute is laid down on the grant. In its proper place and in proper eases, the rule is useful. To apply it here will be mischievous. Even in \u201cthe laws of the hiedes and Persians\u201d an exception was found, as there is to all rules. But the defendant contends that none shall be permitted to this, however palpably, even painfully, erroneous and wrong the result it shall bring about. If so, then this of itself is an exception to the general rule, that \u201cAll rules have their exceptions,\u201d for exceptio probat regulam.\nIt was of such as this that Tennyson spoke :\n\u201cThe old order changeth, yielding place to new,\nLest one good custom should corrupt the world.\u201d\nAs the old Latin maxim has it, \u201cQuis hceret in litera, hceret in cortice.\u201d\nAfter the twice repeated opinion of the Court, that upon these facts the line could not be extended beyond the boundaries and acreage of the grant and plat, the court below should have so instructed the jury.\nBrown, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of Clark, 0. J.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Clark, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Edmund Jonas and Finley & llendren for plaintiff.", "W. C. Newland, J. T. Perkins, Mark Squires, and Council & Yount for defendmti." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILSON LUMBER AND MILLING COMPANY v. HUTTON & BOURBONNAIS COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 28 May, 1912.)\n1. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Calls\u2014Adjoining Lines \u2014 Evidence.\nWhen the line of another tract of land is definitely called for as one of the termini in a grant or deed, and this line is fixed and established, it will control a call by course and distance, whether 'such line is marked or unmarked.\n2. Same \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nAdditional evidence being offered by the defendant since the last appeal of this case, tending to show that'the line of another tract called for as one of the termini and boundary in his grant was a well-recognized and established line or lines closing the survey and boundary as contended for and claimed by him, it is held that the question of location was properly submitted to the jury.\nClark, C. X, dissenting; Brown, X, concurring in the dissenting opinion.\nAppeal from Long, J., at May Term, 1911, of Caldwell.\nCivil action, trespass to realty. There was verdict for defendant. Judgment on tbe verdict, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the per curiam opinion.\nEdmund Jonas and Finley & llendren for plaintiff.\nW. C. Newland, J. T. Perkins, Mark Squires, and Council & Yount for defendmti." }, "file_name": "0445-01", "first_page_order": 493, "last_page_order": 502 }