{ "id": 11271361, "name": "JOHN R. HAGAMAN v. J. M. BERNHARDT and S. F. HARPER", "name_abbreviation": "Hagaman v. Bernhardt", "decision_date": "1913-05-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "381", "last_page": "384", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 N.C. 381" } ], "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": "101 N. C., 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651386 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 N. C., 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276458 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/19/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 N. C., 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 409, "char_count": 7934, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.443218930835507e-08, "percentile": 0.4846716932145465 }, "sha256": "52c0a5f0aabfbd9038376fff3c522c2b10f1d30ba5db5dedf33118868d44560c", "simhash": "1:8684be14ab2a8e72", "word_count": 1392 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:37.824965+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BROWN, J., dissenting." ], "parties": [ "JOHN R. HAGAMAN v. J. M. BERNHARDT and S. F. HARPER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clare:, C. J.\nBotb, defendants appealed and sent up separate records, but as tbey were not on opposite sides nor presented antagonistic exceptions, tbis was an unnecessary expense. Pope v. Lumber Co., ante, 208. (McCurdy\u2019s appeal.)\nTbe decision of tbis case depends upon tbe location of Grant No. 384 to Aaron Bradsbaw., Tbe first exception by tbe defendant Harper is for tbe refusal of tbe motion to nonsuit. Tbis motion could not bave been granted, as there was sufficient evidence to go to tbe jury.\nHarper\u2019s second exception is for tbe refusal to admit in evidence a map claimed by tbe defendants to be a plat of McOaleb Coffey\u2019s land. Tbis .map consisted of some lines only, nothing being written upon it explaining wbat lands were referred to, and there was nothing to give it validity or authority as evidence in tbis controversy. It-was not attached to any muniment of title, and was incompetent. Jones v. Huggins, 12 N. C., 134; Dancy v. Sugg, 19 N. C., 515; Dobson v. Whisenhant, 101 N. C., 645.\nThe defendant Bernhardt\u2019s first exception is to permitting the witness Sullivan to state that when he bought the land from Coffey and began to -survey he commenced at a Spanish oak marked as a corner down next to the river 30 poles from the river. The Spanish oak referred to was admitted by both parties to be a proper corner of the land in controversy. Kirby, witness for defendants, testified under their examination, that J. T. Montgomery, now deceased, pointed out to him the Spanish oak as the corner of the land in controversy.\nBernhardt\u2019s second exception is abandoned and his third exception is the same as Harper\u2019s first exception above. Bernhardt\u2019s fourth exception is the exclusion by the court of the map made by J. C. Harper, and was incompetent, upon the same authorities that are cited in x>assing upon Harper\u2019s second exception above. It was not attached to any deed and was merely an isolated plat, and not competent, in this controversy. Bernhardt\u2019s fifth exception is to the refusal of the coiirt to permit C. 0. Coffey to testify that his fathei\u2019,' Thomas Coffey, XDointed out to him a rock as the corner of Grant No. 4157. The witness stated that his father in pointing out this rock was pointing, out to him his own lines. It was therefore incompetent as a declaration in his own interest.\nBernhardt\u2019s sixth excexrtion was to the refusal of the court to allow the said witness to answer the question, \u201cDo you know the reputation of the rock as being the corner of Grant No. 4157?\u201d This seems to be rex>etition of the last question above, for the witness was not asked if he knew the \u201cgeneral reputation of said rock as a corner.\u201d\nThe chief exception and controversy seems to be this: The defendants asked the court*to charge that \u201cthe call in said grant is \u2018south to and with said Elijah and Wilborn Coffey\u2019s line 145 X>oles to a stake,\u2019 and the court charges you that the line of' the Bradshaw grant would follow the Wilborn Coffey line from the point E. 145 poles, irrespective of course, and at the end of the 145 x>oles, wherever that might be, the line should turn east and continue that course until it struck McCaleb Coffey\u2019s line, the next call of the Bradshaw grant being- \u2018east 135 poles to a stake in McCaleb Coffey\u2019s line.\u2019 \u201d Instead of this, the court charged: -\u201cThe proper interpretation of the next succeeding call in the Bradshaw grant, \u2018thence south to and with Wilborn Coffey\u2019s line 145 poles to a stake,\u2019 would be met by running the line from the circle in the parallelogram to the line E F, and then from the intersection of these two lines south 145 poles along the line E F- and to the \u2018south as far as the distance may extend.\u2019 \u201d\nWe think there was no error in the above respect. If the prayer asked, by the defendant'had been given, the lines could not have been, closed. Under the instruction given, the jury followed the line E E, which was the Wilborn Coffey line (as admitted by the defendants) prolonged to 145 poles.\nUnder the defendants\u2019 prayer, if given, the line would have followed the Wilborn Coffey line a short distance south, and then have turned west with that line and then south, and the lines, as already said, would not have closed. Under the instruction as given, the line ran with the Wilborn Coffey line till it turned square off to the west, and then kept on iff its course \u201csouth to a stake 145 poles from E\u201d (where the line had struck the Wilborn Coffey line). It could not have been -intended to follow all the turns of the Wilborn Coffey line, irrespective of course.\nNo error.\nBROWN, J., dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clare:, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. G. Newland for plaintiff.", "Edmund Jones for defendant Iiarper.", "Lawrence Wakefield and Mark Squires for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN R. HAGAMAN v. J. M. BERNHARDT and S. F. HARPER.\n(Filed 22 May, 1913.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Appeal by Two Parties \u2014 One Record.\nWhere both defendants appeal to the Supreme Court on exceptions which are not antagonistic to each other, it is an unnecessary expense to send up separate records.\n2. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Evidence\u2014Maps Unidentified.\nWhere boundaries to lands are in dispute,, a map is incompetent as evidence when there is nothing thereon to identify it, and it is not attached to any muniment of title.\n3. Deeds .and Conveyances \u2014 Boundaries\u2014'Admitted Corners \u2014 Evidence.\nIn an action involving a disputed boundary to lands, Held, testimony of a witness that in surveying the land he had com-menc\u00e9d at a Spanish oak marked as a corner, etc., was competent, as the Spanish oak was admitted to.be the corner by both parties to the controversy.\n4. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Boundaries\u2014Disputed Corners \u2014 Declarations \u2014 Interests\u2014Evidence.\nDeclarations of one as to a disputed corner of lands in controversy, as the one he claimed at that time as a corner of his own lands, is incompetent, being in his own interest.\n5. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Boundaries\u2014Disputed Corners \u2014 General Reputation \u2014 Evidence.\nThe reputation of the marking of a disputed corner to lands in controversy is .incompetent as evidence, it being necessary to show its general reputation as such.\n6. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Boundaries\u2014Course and Distance \u2014 Evidence \u2014 Instructions.\nThe lands in dispute in this case involve the location of a boundary line which in part reads \u201csouth to and with C\u2019s line 145 poles to a stake,\u201d the next call being \u201ceast 135 poles to a stake in M. C.\u2019s line\u201d: Held, a requested prayer for instruction should be refused, under all the circumstances, that \u201cthe call in said grant is \u2018south to and with said O\u2019s line 145 poles to a stake,\u2019 \u201d which \u201cwould follow the C. line from the point E. 145 poles, irrespective of coarse, and at the end of the 145 poles, wherever that line would be, the line should turn east'and continue that course until it struck the next line called for,\u201d it appearing that to run this line south in the direction and in the number of poles called for and then to run it in the direction and extent of the next call, would close the calls to the deed, and that the charge of the court In this respect was correctly given. In such case the course (S.) and the distance (145 poles) should control, and not the various courses of O\u2019s line.\nBrown, J., dissenting.\nAppeal by defendants from Adams, J., at May Term, 1912, of Caldwell.\nThis is an action of ejectment, tbe plaintiff claiming to be owner and entitled to tbe possession of tbe land described in tbe complaint, of wbicb tbe defendant S. E. Harper was in possession and tbe \u2022 defendant J. M. Bernbardt bas cut timber tbereon, botb defendants claiming title under G. A. Sullivan, and asking an injunction against tbe defendants from cutting said timber or removing tbat wbicb bas already been cut. Tbe. jury rendered a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff, assessing tbe damages at $60. Judgment was rendered accordingly in favor of tbe plaintiff for tbe tract of land described in tbe first issue and for-said damages. Tbe defendants appealed.\nW. G. Newland for plaintiff.\nEdmund Jones for defendant Iiarper.\nLawrence Wakefield and Mark Squires for defendant." }, "file_name": "0381-01", "first_page_order": 425, "last_page_order": 428 }