{ "id": 8656713, "name": "W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY and HAZEL LUMBER COMPANY v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY, J. E. COBURN, and JOHN PROCTOR", "name_abbreviation": "W. M. Ritter Lumber Co. v. Montvale Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1915-05-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "80", "last_page": "105", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "169 N.C. 80" } ], "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": "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., 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 N. C., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659209 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/159/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N. C., 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. C., 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660156 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 N, C., 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652314 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0304-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 N. C., 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/49/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270504 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651406 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269810 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 N. C., 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N. C., 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/81/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 N. C., 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276328 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/63/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 N. C., 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2088596 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/52/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. C., 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/14/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N. C., 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273188 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/86/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269713 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. C., 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8693833 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/14/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 N. C., 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690957 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/29/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 N. C., 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684502 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/31/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 N. C., 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 N. C., 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 N. C., 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277753 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/50/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N. C., 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N. C., 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/44/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N. C., 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698207 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/76/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N. C., 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2097002 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/36/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 N. C., 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650323 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p. 11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 N. C., 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N. C., 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2104337 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/23/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Vt., 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Mo., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8856243 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/21/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Me., 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Gray, 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Mass., 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2036146 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/17/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Wheat., 316", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "case_ids": [ 1444880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/15/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 L. Ed., 279", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 U. S., 514", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5646695 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/93/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Mo., 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 320628 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/11/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S. W. Rep., 94", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Cush., 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Metc., 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Metc.,", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Mo., 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8852174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/28/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Mo., 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8851057 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/48/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Story, 278", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Story", "case_ids": [ 6131537 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-cas/5/1003-02" ] }, { "cite": "88 N. C., 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683174 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/88/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651756 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 N. C., 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660565 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 N. C., 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652993 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 999", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8663293 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0999-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274199 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N. C., 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8693787 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 N. C., 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270777 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 N. C., 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253552 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Cal., 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Atl. Rep., 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272598 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271163 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269622 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 N. C., 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270592 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651835 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N. C., 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275199 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/44/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N. C., 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682651 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/46/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 N. C., 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275474 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/9/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N. C., 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 N. C., 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 816", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662371 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0816-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656861 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 N. C., 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 N. C., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684318 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/7/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 N. C., 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "94 Am. Dec., 308", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "24 N. C., 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "4 Dev., 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev.", "case_ids": [ 11276652 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 N. C., 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "15 N. C., 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "76 N. C., 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "14 N. C., 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684797 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/14/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N. C., 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "18 N. C., 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "19 N. C., 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "78 N. C., 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "56 N. C., 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "36 N. C., 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2097002 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/36/0011-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1889, "char_count": 71474, "ocr_confidence": 0.457, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.850768000588913e-07, "percentile": 0.8406343381409496 }, "sha256": "3b6346a0d27b6ec7dd042a78c1526cf1f0d688e3c4a790fbdffee5c5916baf43", "simhash": "1:f440a4468c138fe0", "word_count": 13125 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:09.233721+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "The Chief Justice concurs in this opinion." ], "parties": [ "W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY and HAZEL LUMBER COMPANY v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY, J. E. COBURN, and JOHN PROCTOR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PLAINTIFFS\u2019 APPEAL.\nWalker, J.,\nafter stating the case: The right of the plaintiffs to recover depends upon the true location of the first line of Grant No. 3290, that is, as to land described in the grant which is not covered by any of the inside patents. The question as to the effect of the latter upon the rights and interests of the parties is presented by the defendant\u2019s appeal, and need not be considered here.\nTbe contention of tbe plaintiffs is that tbe first line of that grant sbonld be from A to B, as shown on tbe court map, while tbe defendants say that it should be from A to D.\nWe are satisfied that we cannot adopt tbe plaintiff\u2019s view, unless we bold that what was done by Sawyer and Kelly, when they made tbe survey in 1871, amounted to a- practical location of the first line within tbe rule laid down in Cherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., 82, that where it can be proved that there was a line actually run by tbe surveyor, which was marked and a comer made, tbe party claiming under tbe patent or deed shall bold accordingly, notwithstanding a mistaken description of tbe land in tbe patent or deed. \u25a0 But tbe insuperable obstacle to tbe application of this rule is that the line must have been \u201cmarked and a corner made,\u201d and it must also appear that this was done for tbe purpose of making it a line of tbe tract of land or a call in tbe deed, for it is said in Safret v. Hartman, 30 N. C., 185, after quoting from Cherry v. Slade, as above: \u201cThis rule presupposes that tbe patent or deed is made in pursuance of tbe survey, and that tbe line was marked and tbe corner that was made in making tbe survey was adopted and acted upon in making tbe patent or deed, and therefore permits such line and comer to control tbe patent or deed, although they are not called for and do not make a part of it. Parol evidence being let in for tbe purpose of controlling tbe patent or deed by establishing a line and comer not called for, as a matter of course, it is also let in for tbe purpose of showing that such line and corner were not adopted and acted on in making tbe patent or deed, because tbe rule presupposes this to be tbe fact.\u201d It may also be added at this place that tbe rule was adopted, against tbe strong but ineffectual protest of tbe judges long since expressed^ for tbe sole purpose of executing tbe intention of tbe parties to tbe grant, and not to defeat it, and it was under tbe stress of some \u2018hard ease,\u201d where a sense of justice prevailed over tbe long established and safe rule forbidding a written instrument to be contradicted or varied by parol evidence, that tbe rule was brought into being. But conceding fully its existence, and that it is too firmly imbedded in tbe law of boundary to be now disturbed, we are admonished that it should be administered with caution and not carried beyond its well defined limits. Judge Pearson once said that tbe rule was \u201ca violation of principle\u201d and should not be extended. Safret v. Hartman, supra. We may well say in this case, what was so well said in Elliott v. Jefferson, 133 N. C., 207, that- tbe error of tbe plaintiff lies in a misapprehension of tbe application of the rule, that in case of a discrepancy a marked line controls the calls in tbe deed as to course and distance. This rule never applies unless the marked line is so connected with tbe deed, either by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, as to create a presumption as to the intent of tbe grantor. Tbe mere running and marking of a line can never' convey tbe title to land, nor can it take the place of a deed. At best, it can only serve to locate the land conveyed in the deed, and can operate only in aid of the deed. Admitting that a line is run in contemplation of a deed, it does not bind the grantor, as a different contract may be made or the line subsequently changed. As no title can vest except by the execution of a deed, the vital question is the intent of the grantor at the time of such execution. ' It was also stated in that ease that \u201cWherever a marked line or other natural object is permitted to vary the description called for in the deed, it is always in pre\u2022sumed furtherance of the intent of the grantor in the execution of the deed. In other words, it is to carry out the true intent of the deed, and never in derogation thereof. This principle is clearly recognized in the authorities cited by the plaintiff himself, as will appear from the following extracts: . . . The doctrine thus laid down is in full accord with the principles enunciated and the cases cited in Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N. C., 816, and is sustained by the general current of authority here and elsewhere. In the construction of all deeds and grants there is one essential object to be kept in view, and that is to ascertain the true intent of the grantor and to give full effect to that intention when not contrary to law. All rules of construction adopted by the courts are simply means to a given end, being those methods of reasoning which experience has taught are best calculated to lead to that intention. Hence, all authorities unite -in saying that no rule can be invoked, no matter how correct in its general application, that tends to defeat the intention of the grantor. This doctrine is of such universal acceptance as to require but few citations, more to illustrate its extent than to prove its existence.\u201d\nSo we see that the very foundation of the rule is the presumed intention of the parties to the grant, and the only excuse for it, as it is opposed to the general principle, is that it enables us to ascertain what the intention was in respect of the boundary.\nIt may be well here to reproduce some of the comments of this Court upon the rule, and its application, as what has been thus said is most pertinent to the facts of this case, as found by the able and learned referee and judge. The question as to the extent of the rule and the manner of its application was presented in the oft-cited case of Reed v. Schenck, 13 N. C., 416, where Chief Justice Henderson, with his usual clearness and acumen, thus refers to the rule: \u201cFor many years we have in all cases, I believe, except one, adhered to the description contained in the deed, and it is much to be. lamented that we do not altogether. The ease to which I allude is where the deed describes the land by course and distance only, and old maUis are found corresponding in age, as well as can be ascertained, with the- date of the deed, and so nearly corresponding with the courses and distances that they may well be supposed to have been made for its boundaries, the marks shall be taken as the termini of tbe land. This is going as far as prudence permits; for wbat passes the land not included by the description of the deed, but included by the marked termini? Not the deed; for the description contained in the deed does not comprehend it. It passes, therefore, either by parol or by a mere presumption. As far as we know, there has been no series of decisions by which the description in the deed is varied by marks, unless they were made for the termini of the land described in the deed, or supposed to be so made, and-to which it was intended the deed should refer, or to which it was supposed the deed did refer, or rather supposed that the courses and distances correspond with the marks, and that the same land was described, whether by course and distance in the deed or by the marked termini.\" And in Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N. C., 138, Justice Ashe, with equal force and clearness, states the object and defines the limit of the rule. He said: \u201cFor instance, when there has been a practical'location of the land, as when it can be proved that there was a line actually run and marked and a corner made, such a boundary will be upheld, notwithstanding a mistaken description in the deed. Cherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., 82. The construction has been adopted by our Court to carry out the intention of the parties when it is clearly made to appear, and to effect that object course and distance will be disregarded if the means of correcting the mistake be furnished by a more certain description in the same deed, and especially will it be so when some monument is erected contemporaneously with the execution of the deed,\u201d citing Campbell v. McArthur, 9 N. C., 33; Cooper v. White, 46 N. C., 389; Spruill v. Davenport, 44 N. C., 134, and Reed v. Schenck, supra. The rule has received consideration, and its precise limits fixed, in the following cases: Shaffner v. Gaynor, 117 N. C., 16; Fincannon v. Sudderth, 140 N. C., 246; Mitchell v. Wellborn, 149 N. C., 347; Lance v. Rumbough, 150 N. C., 19; Land Co. v. Erwin, Ibid., 41; and more recently it has been discussed very fully by Justice Hoke in Clarke v. Alridge, 162 N. C., 326, citing the principal cases which had been decided up to that time, and by Justice Brown in Allison v. Kenion, 163 N. C., 582; and they all tend to this general result and agree upon this proposition, that the line thus run and marked, before the deed was executed or contemporaneously with the deed, must have been clearly intended by the parties as- one of the lines of the land to be conveyed, and without this intention the mere fact that a line was surveyed or even marked will not bring the case within the operation of the rule, unless the said intention can be clearly inferred from the conduct of the parties in regard thereto, the intention being as essential as the fact that the line was surveyed and a corner made. It has grown into one of the maxims of the law that such construction should be made of the language of a deed or other written instrument as is most agreeable to the intention of the parties. The words are not the principal things to be considered, but the intent and design, which, is the chief object to be attained. We cannot alter words or insert others which are not in the instrument, but those that are there should be construed in the way most likely to accord with the intent or meaning of the parties, and we may reject words that are merely insensible. In Smith v. Parkhurst, 2 Atl. Rep., 135, Lord Chief Justice Wittes, referring to these principles of construction, said: \u201cThose maxims, my lords, are founded upon the greatest authority \u2014 Coke, Plowden, and Lord Chief Justice Hale; and the law commands the astutia \u2014 the cunning \u2014 of judges in construing words in such a manner as shall best answer the intent. The art of construing words in such a manner as shall destroy the intent may show the ingenuity of, but is very ill becoming, a judge.\u201d This idea was never better expressed than in the case of Walsh v. Hitt, 38 Cal., 281, 287, by Justice Sanderson: \u201cIn the construction of written instruments we have never derived much aid from the technical rules of the books. The only rule of much value is to place ourselves as near as possible in the seats which were occupied by the parties at the time the written instrument was executed, then taking it by its four corners, read it. This is the main object of all constructions. When the intention of the parties can be ascertained, nothing remains but to effectuate that intention.\u201d The same rule has frequently been stated by this Court, and applied in the construction of various kinds of written instruments, grants, deeds, wills, and contracts. Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 507; Triplett v. Williams, 149 N. C., 394.\nWhen we look at this case in the light of the foregoing authorities, it is manifest that the findings of the referee and judge withdraw the case from the operation of the rule as to the effect of a line being run and marked at the time the grant was made, as they distinctly find, and as clearly and emphatically as language can express such a finding, that JB. L. Sawyer and his surveyor, M. L. Kelly, when they made the survey in 1871 and ran along Deep Gap or Forester Ridge, had no intention of marking the line A-B as a line of the tract of land to be thereafter described in the Grant No. 3290. To use the language of the judge: \u201cIn respect of the survey made in 1871, for Grant No. 3290, on the B. L. Sawyer entries, the court finds that said survey began at the chestnut oak at \u2018A\u2019 and was carried to the point \u2018B\u2019 at Thunderhead, the same being the head of Defeat Ridge, retracing to chestnut oak at A, as tbe one fact is necessarily to be inferred from tbe other. It appears also that it was Sawyer who set the compass in 1867 on tbe Bryson survey and sighted to tbe sugar maple, which be told tbe surveying party was at tbe bead of Big Chestnut Ridge. He was tbe marker, and be marked tbe chestnut oak so as to indicate tbe direction from which they bad come in reaching it and tbe direction they would go in leaving, tbe latter being towards tbe sugar maple on Big Chestnut Ridge. Tbe marks were three backs on each side of tbe tree. Sawyer inquired of T. S. Siler bow be could measure tbe line to tbe sugar maple without running it, and be was shown bow it could be done by a diagram. It is also found that it was tbe intention that tbe western line of tbe Kelly survey of 1871 should coincide with tbe eastern line of tbe Bryson survey of 1867, and tbe tbe northwest corner of the Kelly survey should be identical with tbe northeast corner of tbe Bryson survey. Tbe Bry-son northeast corner is at tbe sugar maple, tbe point marked D on tbe map. So it is clear that tbe line up tbe Big Gap or Forester Ridge was not run and marked for tbe purpose of making it a line of tbe grant to be thereafter issued (No. 3290), but, on tbe contrary, tbe intention of tbe parties was in strict accordance with tbe express words of tbe grant, that tbe line A-D should be one of its lines. We are bound by tbe findings of fact as made by the referee and judge, as it is not our custom to review them under such circumstances. Usry v. Suit, 91 N. C., 406; Wiley v. Logan, 95 N. C., 358; Dunavant v. R. R., 122 N. C., 999; Collins v. Young, 118 N. C., 265; Harris v. Smith, 144 N. C., 439. Tbe findings of fact are conclusive upon us unless it appears that they were not based upon any evidence, or rested upon improper evidence. Usry v. Suit, supra. There was evidence to sustain tbe findings in this case.\nBut plaintiffs contend that, while tbe call is for tbe Bryson line, it also extends from A \u201c1,800 poles north to tbe Tennessee line at tbe bead of Defeat Ridge, and they insist that tbe line should go to that place, notwithstanding it is also said that it must begin and run with Bryson\u2019s line and corner with Bryson\u2019s northeast corner; but we do not think that this is the proper meaning of the call. The leading purpose and dominant idea is that this line shall coincide with the Bryson line, and if this part of the call is ignored and the line is extended north to the intersection of the head of Defeat Ridge with the Tennessee line, it would violate the evident intention of the parties, as gathered from the deed, that it should corner at D, where the maple stood, and of course stop there, for it could not corner there very well if that was not to be the end of the line. The clear intention of the parties must prevail, and the line must run with that of Bryson\u2019s and stop at D, as a corner of the land. It is plain that the parties mistakenly thought, when they inserted the call for Defeat Ridge in the grant, that the northeast corner of *the Bryson land was on the Tennessee line at the head of that ridge, but their purpose was to stop at the corner, wherever it should be, the call for Defeat Ridge being descriptive and not locative. The call is to be construed as if it read, \u201ccornering at Bryson\u2019s northeast corner, supposed to be on the Tennessee line, at the head of Defeat Ridge.\u201d This is a much more reasonable interpretation of the grant than if we should defeat the intention to make \u201cBryson\u2019s line\u201d one of the lines, by running the line along Deep Grap or Forester Ridge to Defeat Ridge, eliminating' the primary and principal call, and the law does not require that we should do so. Referring to the \u201cthird\u201d of the four rules for locating boundaries which are stated in Cherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., 82, Chief Justice Taylor said: \u201cThis rule is founded upon the same reasons with the preceding ones, the design of all being to ascertain the location originally made; and, calling for another well known line of another tract, denotes the intention of the party with equal strength to calling for a natural boundary, so long as that line can be proved.\u201d The case of Bonaparte v. Carter, 106 N. C., 534, is pertinent, for there the call was for a small oak, John Edwards\u2019 corner, on the side of the creek. It turned out that the Edwards corner was 300 yards from the creek, and the Court, by Justice Clark, said: \u201cThe side of the creek is not called for as a boundary, but merely as a description of the locality of the beginning point, which is \u2018a small oak, John Edwards\u2019 corner.\u2019 If that can be identified, an inaccuracy in the description of the locality will be disregarded. What is the beginning point is a matter of law for the court to declare. This he did correctly. Where it is, is for the jury to say; and the court so held. The objection is, in effect, that the court did not hold that though \u2018a small oak, John Edwards\u2019 corner,\u2019 might be identified, it could not be held to be the beginning corner unless it stood on the bank of the creek. This is not the case where two natural objects, a creek and a marked tree, are both called for, and the question arises which shall govern. The case now presented is where a marked tree is ' described as located on the side of a creek. Inquiry is, Which shall govern, the tree as actually located,\u2018or as described to be located? The failure of the description may make it difficult to satisfy the jury that the tree claimed to be the \u2018small oak, John Edwards\u2019 corner,\u2019 is such. But if the evidence is sufficient to identify it, the inaccuracy in describing the locality as \u2018on the side of the creek,\u2019 when it is 300 yards off, cannot be allowed to vitiate the grant. The exact point has never been decided in this State, but in Murray v. Spencer, 88 N. C., 357, the Court intimates that when a marked tree in the line of another tract is called for, and the marked tree is identified, but is not in the line of the other tract, that the tree will be held the true corner, and the misdescrip\u2022tion of it, as being in such other line, will be disregarded. And the point is expressly so held by Judge Story in Cleveland v. Smith, 2 Story, 278.\u201d And the same rule was followed in Fincannon v. Sudderth, 140 N. C., 246. In Murray v. Spencer, 88 N. C., 357, where- the conflict was between a tree and the line of another tract, both being called for, it was held to be a question for the jury to determine as to which one was actually adopted. In our case the referee and judge have decided in favor of the line, and it is intimated by Justice Ruffin that if the line was well known and its location certain, the preference should be awarded to it, as between the two objects in the call. Physical monuments are generally preferred to other objects in the call, because they are more durable, and in some respects more reliable; but even they will give way to a more certain and definite call in the grant or deed, especially if the intention is clearly manifested that they should not govern or control in ascertaining the location of the land. It was held in Jamison v. Fopiano, 48 Mo., 194: \u201cAlthough monuments will generally prevail over other calls in a deed, yet if, taking the whole deed together, they are apparently erroneous, they will be disregarded. And a boundary may be rejected when it is clear that it was inadvertently inserted, and that a tract with different boundaries was intended to be conveyed. In the construction of deeds words are not the principal thing, but the intent and design of the parties; and, therefore, when there are any words in \u2018a deed that appear repugnant to the other parts of it, and to the general intention of the parties, they will be rejected. The evident intention here was to convey the whole Lami tract, and the error of the parties in designating a boundary line ought not to defeat that intention,\u201d citing Gibson v. Bogy, 28 Mo., 478; 4 Greenleaf\u2019s Cruise, 307 and 338, and note; Thatcher v. Howland, 2 Metc., 41, and Bosworth v. Sturtevant, 2 Cush., 391. \u201cWhile natural objects and artificial boundaries will generally prevail over course and distance, yet the former will often, from the nature of the case, be compelled to yield to the most inferior call. Everything being equal, the call for natural objects would have precedence, because most durable and less liable to change, and are supposed to be selected as landmarks because of their immutability. This is only true when they are selected as locative calls, and are then not always absolute; when they are noted in the field notes as mere incidental calls in passing, their reliability is weakened and sometimes rendered wholly worthless. Distances called for between comers to creeks or roads, unless specially designated in such manner as to show the intention to make them locative, are not such, and will not ordinarily have precedence over a call for course and distance. The calls in the Hunt deed for the creek and road are incidental, and unless shown to be intended as locative, should not be so regarded if inconsistent with other locative calls.\u201d Jones v. Andrews, 72 Texas, 5. See, also, Lutcher v. Hart, 26 S. W. Rep., 94; Page v. Scheibel, 11 Mo., 167, 187.\nIt was held in White v. Luning, 93 U. S., 514 (23 L. Ed., 938):\n\u201c1. As a general rule, monuments, natural or artificial, referred to in a deed control its construction, rather than courses and distances; but this rule is not inflexible; it yields whenever, taking all the particulars of the deed together, it would be absurd to apply it.\n\u201c2. If monuments are inconsistent with the calls for other monuments, and it is apparent from all the other particulars in the deed that they were inadvertently inserted, they will be rejected.\n\u201c3. Other things being equal, boundaries prevail over courses; but where the corners and distances inclose the identical land in dispute, it would be wrong to let two false boundaries stand, in order to defeat a conveyance.\u201d\nSee, also, 1 Jones on R. P., secs. 382, 383, 384; 2 Devlin on Deeds, 1405, 1406; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black (U. S.), 504 (17 L. Ed., 279); Shipp v. Miller, 2 Wheat., 316; Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass., 207; Thatcher v. Howland, 2 Metc., 41; Parks v. Loomis, 6 Gray, 472; Hamilton v. Foster, 45 Me., 40; Evans v. Greene, 21 Mo., 481; Bass v. Mitchell, 22 Texas, 285; Bagley v. Morrill, 46 Vt., 99; Atkinson v. Cummins, 9 How. (U. S.), 485; Browning v. Atkinson, 37 Texas, 633; Barclay v. Howell, 6 Peters (U. S.), 511.\nIn Mayo v. Blount, 23 N. C., 283, it was said to be \u201ca sound rule of construction that a perfect description, which fully ascertains the corpus, is not to be defeated by the addition of a further and false description.\u201d Cherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., at p. 96, Henderson, J.; Proctor v. Porter, 15 N. C., 307; Shaffer v. Ham, 111 N. C., 1, at p. 11; Shultz v. Young, 25 N. C., 287.\nWe find it stated in plaintiff\u2019s brief that \u201cWhen a deed sufficiently identifies land by its known boundaries or other means, and then super-adds, unnecessarily, to the description, such further description, though inaccurate, will not vitiate the previous and perfect description.\u201d citing Simpson v. King, 36 N. C., 11; Mortgage Co. v. Long, 113 N. C., 126. This is because of the maxim, Falsa demonstrate non nocet. If the line should be run from A to D and then extended to the head of Defeat Ridge on the Tennessee line, so as to satisfy both calls (Clark v. Wag oner, 76 N. C., 463), it would be of no benefit to tbe plaintiffs, as we understand. But tbe mention of Defeat Ridge was evidently incidental, and not intended to be locative. It was merely a mistake of tbe parties as to where tbe Bryson corner was. As we bave seen, \u201call authorities unite in saying that no rule can be invoked, no matter bow correct in its general application, that tends to defeat tbe intention of tbe grantor.\u201d Elliott v. Jefferson, supra. In this case tbe mistake in tbe call for Defeat Ridge is corrected by other more certain descriptions in tbe grant, which is one of tbe permissible methods of ascertaining what was meant. Campbell v. McArthur, 9 N. C., 33; Ritter v. Barrett, 20 N. C. (4 D. and B.), 133; Cooper v. White, 46 N. C., 389; Kessam v. Gaylord, 44 N. C., 116.\nThere are several facts which tend to show clearly what property was intended to be described:\n1. There is no reference in tbe grant to tbe Deep Gap or Forester Ridge, but tbe call is for a course due north to tbe Tennessee line, and this course is deflected, not to coincide with Deep Gap or Forester Ridge, but with tbe Bryson line, beginning with it, running with it, and \u201ccornering\u201d with it at its northeast corner, where tbe maple is. We must, therefore, adopt tbe latter as tbe line, or, at least, as a part of tbe line. Mizzell v. Simmons, 79 N. C., 187; Cansler v. Fite, 50 N. C., 424.\n2. If tbe call is run with tbe Bryson line, and .stopped at tbe Bryson northeast comer, tbe other calls of tbe grant fit in with it; whereas if run as plaintiffs contend it should be, there are marked discrepancies.\n\u25a0 3. The Bryson line was marked, when tbe first or Siler survey was made, at both of its ends, and has for its northeast comer a maple, which identifies it with certainty.\n4. There are subsequent calls in tbe Bryson survey for physical monuments just as certain and as reliable as Defeat Ridge, and they would not be reached without greatly lengthening lines, if tbe line is carried to Defeat Ridge. One of them is \u201c700 poles to a beech, where the Locust Ridge reaches the Tennessee line.\u201d\nIt will be conceded, we presume, that the mere understanding of the parties, without more, as to the location of Bryson\u2019s line and northeast comer, cannot control the call. Hough v. Howe, 22 N. C., 228; Johnson v. Farlow, 33 N. C., 190; Literary Fund v. Clark, 31 N. C., 63; Wynne v. Alexander, 29 N. C., 237; Sasser v. Herring, 14 N. C., 340; Land Co. v. Erwin, 150 N. C., 41; Miller v. Bryan, 86 N. C., 167; Ingram v. Colson, 14 N. C., 520; Patton v. Alexander, 52 N. C., 603. The call is not from the chestnut oak (at A) to Defeat Ridge (at B), but a very different one, and if you go to Defeat Ridge at all, it must be by way of the Bryson line, and importance must be attached to the fact that it also calls for Bryson\u2019s corner as the end of the line. The Bryson line, at the time, had been well established, having one corner at the chestnut oak (at A) and the other at the maple (at B), with marks on the trees indicating its course. It could easily be identified, and was certainly identified.\nThere are many exceptions to evidence in the case, but we think they can be so classified as to present but few questions for our consideration.\nFirst. The testimony of the witnesses M. L. Kelly, P. 0. Sawyer, and Joseph M. Greer, and any other of the same kind, as to the declarations of B. L. Sawyer concerning the Bryson line, was properly limited by the court to what was actually done on the Kelly survey. The declarations of B. L. Sawyer as to the location of the Bryson line were incompetent, because he was not shown to be disinterested at the time they were made, and, on the contrary, it appears that he was interested at the time of the alleged declarations. Morgan v. Purnell, 11 N. C., 97; Sasser v. Herring, 14 N. C., 340; Hedrick v. Gobble, 63 N. C., 48; Caldwell v. Neely, 81 N. C., 114; Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. C., 15; Yow v. Hamilton, 336 N. C., 357; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 138 N. C., 504; Hill v. Dalton, 140 N. C., 9; Lumber Co. v. Branch, 150 N. C., 240. The declarations of a grantor are not competent in favor of one claiming under him. Sasser v. Herring, supra. We need hot say whether the evidence is sufficient to show the declarations were ante litem mo-lam. It may be said that where the declarant has parted with his interest, what he has afterwards said about lines and boundaries cannot be used against those claiming under him to disparage their title. The same principle applies to the testimony of the witness A. C. Hoffman.\nSecond. The testimony as to the contents of the deposition of Bent Cook was properly excluded, as the witnesses were not able to give the substance thereof (Wright v. Stone, 49 N. C., 516; Whitemire v. Heath, 155 N, C., 304), and, besides, the deposition itself was not competent, as it had not been opened and passed upon, when it was destroyed, and never has been restored for that. purpose. Revisal, sec. 1652. It may be added that the testimony of Bent Cook as to declarations of Bryson was incompetent, as they were made after Bryson had disposed of his interest, and would disparage those claiming under him. 16 Cyc., 979. The testimony of T. T. Jenkins and T. J. Calhoun was properly excluded, and is governed by what we have already said in regard to the other excluded evidence. Besides, it does not clearly appear when the alleged declarations were made.\nThird. The testimony of \"William Walker as to line trees was not sufficiently definite as to kind of marks or their age, and in other respects was very indefinite. Even if there was any error, it was not sufficiently harmful for a reversal.\nFourth. Testimony as to the acts and declarations of Kope Elias was properly rejected. The relation between George W. Swepson and Elias, as client and attorney, appears to have been severed at the time of the alleged acts and declarations, by tbe death of Swepson, and we can see no authority in Elias to bind Swepson by his acts or declarations. It surely did not arise out of their relations as attorney and client.\nFifth. The copy of the grant to George S. Walker, No. 138, taken from the registry, was properly admitted in evidence. By Revisal, sec. 988, it is provided that the registry of a deed, or duly certified copy thereof, shall be evidence in any court of the State, without accounting for the nonproduction of the original, and by sections. 1588, 1599, it is further provided that the court may, \u201cupon affidavit suggesting some material variance from the original in such registry, or upon other sufficient grounds,\u201d by rule or order require the production of the original of such deed, in which case the same shall be produced, or its absence duly accounted for according to the course and practice of the court. In this case, upon affidavit, Judge Peebles ordered that defendants allow plaintiffs to inspect the original grant, No. 138, and the plat and certificate of survey thereto attached, or show to the satisfaction of the court that they had made diligent effort to find them and failed, and on failure to produce the original grant, that they procure and use 'a certified copy of the same from the office of the Secretary of State. The latter was offered in evidence, and the court found that defendants had never had the originals in their possession or under their control, and that they had made a bona, fide effort to produce the original papers by doing the things and making the inquiries and search detailed in the finding. Thereupon the court overruled the exception to the admission of the copies.\nWe concur with his Honor that rfeasonable search had been made for the missing papers, and that the order of Judge Peebles had, at least, been substantially complied with. It was fairly exhaustive as to sources of information and probable places of deposit, and to have required more would have rendered it practically impossible to have complied with the order. There is really no tangible or reliable proof that there is any variance between the originals and the copies \u2014 none upon which a finding to that effect should legally be made. It is merely suggestion, conjecture, or supposition; but even if there had been some proof to that effect, the defendants satisfied the court that they had made a diligent effort to comply with the order, as they were required by its terms to do. Justice Puffin said, in Love v. Harbin, 87 N. C., at p. 254: \u201cA main purpose intended to be accomplished by registration is the perpetuation of the instrument, and of the memorial of its probate and order of registration, and it will not do to hold that this intention of the statute may in every case be defeated by a notice to produce the original. Under the operation of such a rule it would be next to impossible to establish any title depending upon very ancient deeds, as they are rarely preserved so as to pass witb tbe land; and tbis partly because it is universally understood tbat wben once registered tbe proofs of tbeir execution and probate are perpetuated.\u201d\nSixth. As to tbe testimony of Mr. Davidson in regard to proceedings in Wyman v. Taylor, we do not see bow it could be competent, if relevant to tbe issue in tbis case, to sbow tbat tbe court refused certain instructions in tbat case. It was re\u2019s inter alios acta. Tbe court submitted tbe evidence for tbe purpose of showing tbe litem motam, as tbe record states.\nSeventh. Tbe description in a junior grant may not be evidence of tbe location of lines or boundaries of a senior grant (Sasser v. Herring, supra; Hill v. Dalton, 136 N. C., 339) ; but it was tbe survey of Siler tbat fixed tbe Bryson line, and tbis was made prior to tbe date of tbe senior grant, No. 3290. . Tbis is quite a different question from tbe one decided in tbe cases cited. Tbe court properly admitted tbe map and certificate of survey to corroborate Siler.\nEighth. If there is any defect in tbe defendant\u2019s chain of title, it does not concern tbe plaintiffs in tbis appeal, as they must recover upon the strength of tbeir own title, and not upon tbe weakness of tbeir adversary\u2019s. They cannot recover by showing merely tbat defendants bad no title, even if tbis be true. ,\nNinth. Tbe referee was not bound to find a fact simply because there may have been some evidence of it, as be bad tbe right to weigh tbe same, and therefore be could consider tbe evidence of reputation as to tbe Bry-son line in connection witb tbe other evidence in tbe case, and was not compelled to find in accordance witb tbe reputation. He considers tbe whole evidence, and not merely a part of it; and tbis applies to- other exceptions based upon bis failure to find certain facts.\nTenth. The testimony of Joseph M. Greer, as to certain facts told him about tbe Bryson northeast corner at Defeat Ridge, was properly excluded, as be said \u201cit seemed to be agreed by all of said persons\u201d; but just who it was tbat called bis attention to it be would not say positively, because be did not recollect every person present. Tbis was entirely too indefinite. He did not, and could not, say who it was, nor did be state what was said, so tbat tbe court could judge of tbe quality of tbe testimony, but be was only able to state tbat \u201cit seemed to be agreed by them.\u201d Tbe witness must be able to give the substance of what was said and by whom, and tbe impression made on him will not answer tbe purpose. Tbis was held in Grant v. Mitchell, 156 N. C., 15, where, at p. 18, it is said: \u201cTbe secondary witness may give tbe substance, but not tbe mere effect, of tbe former testimony. To allow him to state tbe latter only would be to permit him to decide upon tbe effect of tbe testimony, instead of submitting it to tbe jury, to whom it properly belongs,\u201d quoting from Jones v. Ward, 48 N. C., 26, and citing King v. Joliffe, 4 Term R., 290.\nThere are a few more exceptions, but they are fully covered, we think, by what we have said in regard to the others, and require no further discussion. It may be said generally, and in conclusion, that no reference is made in Grant No. 3290 to Deep Gap or Forester Ridge as a line of the grant, and this is made more significant by the fact it is referred to only for the purpose of describing the beginning comer at the chestnut oak (A on map), and the next call is \u201cnorth with Col. T. D. Bryson\u2019s line,\u201d and so forth, and not \u201cnorth with the Deep Gap or Forester Ridge, Col. Bryson\u2019s line,\u201d as we would expect if the ridge controlled the call. The referee and judge find that it was not the intention to make the ridge one of the lines, or Defeat Ridge one of the corners, but the sole intention was to start at the chestnut oak and go to the sugar tree or maple at the head of Big Chestnut Ridge. It is found as a fact that in the survey of 1871, for Grant No. 3290, the line was measured along Deep Gap or Forester Ridge and carried to Thunderhead, it being the head of Defeat Ridge, in order to retrace the .survey of 1867, for the purpose heretofore stated, which was triangulation, the object being to locate the line from A to D, or from the first corner to the sugar maple, and to establish, at the latter place, the Bryson northeast comer. If a line had been run along Deep Gap, it could not be adopted as a line of the survey unless it was so intended to be, and it is found by both referee and judge that there was no such intention. The line from A to D was marked for some distance at either end, and cuts or hacks made on the chestnut tree at the place of beginning, and, at the time, indicating its direction. Besides, to fix the line at A-D will harmonize with the other calls of the Bryson' tract of land. All these things being considered\u2014 and others could be added \u2014 make it safer and more certain, as a guide to the intention of the parties, that the call should be controlled by the Bryson line as thus located, from A to D, than by the line A-B, which is not even north, and has no such indicia of a line as we find on the other. Again we say, physical monuments will have the preference in the calls, unless there is some more definite and certain call that clearly indicates the intention of the parties. There is no hard and fast rule of the law that is permitted to have the effect of defeating the clearly expressed will of the parties.\nIt must be borne in mind that we are dealing with a referee\u2019s report, in which the facts were found and the findings afterwards confirmed by the judge, and this renders many of the cases cited by the plaintiff inapplicable. It is found, for instance, that the line from A to B was not run and marked, nor was it intended to be the first line of the Kelly survey, but the line A-D was intended to- be the first line, and, further!, that the line A-B, by Forester\u2019s Deep Gap Ridge, was run, though not marked, for tbe purpose solely of locating tbe line A-D as tbe first line of tbe tract, tbe Kelly survey having been made just as was tbe Siler survey and for tbe same purpose. The rule, therefore, which classifies locative calls into natural objects, mountains, rivers, lakes, and creeks, artificial objects, as marked trees, lines, and course and distance, giving them rank in tbe order named, does not require, in this case, that tbe first line should run from A to B, without any regard to tbe call for Bry-son\u2019s line, as tbe line A-D was actually run and marked for tbe first line; and, besides, there are other calls in the survey of equal importance with tbe one for Defeat Ridge, which would have to be disregarded if that is adopted as tbe end of tbe first line. If tbe line is run from A to D, we are following tbe footsteps of tbe surveyor, and rejecting a false description for that which is not only certain, but which tbe referee and judge say was tbe one actually adopted by tbe parties at tbe time of making tbe surveys. This is not a case where there is a call by course merely to a certain object, for here tbe course is controlled by an additional call for a well established line of another tract, which was actually run and marked when tbe Bryson line was surveyed, and tbe question is whether tbe course should be along said line. Tbe well settled rule, and tbe true construction of tbe grant, require this departure from the course. Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 159 N. C., 445; Whitaker v. Cover, 140 N. C., 280; Bowen v. Lumber Co., 153 N. C., 366. Abstract rules of law should not be so applied as to disappoint tbe clear intention of tbe parties, Triplett v. Witherspoon, 149 N. C., 394; Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 507, and tbe rules of law in respect to boundary were adopted to prevent such a result. It may be added that Forester or Deep Gap Ridge, along which tbe Kelly survey is claimed to have been made, appears to be quite as prominent and as well known as Defeat Ridge, and yet there is no mention of it in tbe surveys, or tbe grants, as a line. It is argued by plaintiffs that it would be far more certain, if called for, than tbe line of another tract; and if this is so, why did not tbe surveyor call for it?\nTbe record and tbe briefs are voluminous, tbe record containing 805 and tbe briefs 342 printed pages, and there were a large number of exceptions, running into tbe hundreds. Some of tbe questions are highly important and very delicate in certain of their phases. Tbe case has been strenuously contested, with great ability and research, and tbe Court has bestowed upon it most careful study and reflection. We have concluded that we but decide it upon its true legal merits when we bold that no error was committed at tbe bearing in this tbe plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\nNo error.\n, DEFENDANT\u2019S APPEAL.\nPer Curiam.\nIn tbe defendant\u2019s appeal it is found, and so adjudged by tbe Court, that there is no error in tbe proceedings or judgment.\nNo error.\nPLAINTIFF\u2019S APPEAL.'", "type": "majority", "author": "Walker, J., Per Curiam." }, { "text": "Bbown, J.,\ndissenting: I feel compelled to differ from tbe conclusions reached by the majority of the Court in this ease, and I will state my reasons as briefly as possible.\nThis is an action brought to recover a triangular tract of land delineated on the map as beginning at A, running to B, thence to D, and back to A. The plaintiff\u2019s appeal involves the proper location of the first line of Grant No. 3290. The beginning corner of this grant is admitted by all parties to this action to be correctly located, and is shown on the court map at the letter A. The description of Grant 3290 may be analyzed as follows:\n1. A tract of land containing 10,000 acres.\n2. Lying in Macon County, Section No.-, District No.-.\n3. Being part of the lands lately acquired, etc.\n4. Bounded as follows, viz.:\n5. On the waters of Hazelnut Creek.\n6. Beginning at a chestnut oak on a trail leading from the mouth of Sugar Fork Creek to the Deep Gap.\n7. Beginning and running with Col. T. D. Bryson\u2019s line.\n8. Eighteen hundred poles north to the Tennessee line at the head of Defeat Ridge.\n9. Cornering with Bryson\u2019s northeast corner.\n10. Thence east 700 poles to a beech, where the Locust Eidge reaches the Tennessee line, etc.\nIt is admitted that the chestnut oak at A is'the beginning corner of this grant. I am of opinion (1) that the first line of Grant 3290 begins at A and runs to B on the map as a conclusion of law wholly irrespective of whether there ever has been or is now a \u201cBryson\u2019s line,\u201d and regardless of where it was located or alleged to have been located. In other words, the existence and location of this line is entirely immaterial for the purpose of establishing the first line of Grant 3290. The admitted facts show that this grant was located by starting at A and running to B, .this being the identical line actually run and marked at the time the eu tries were made.\n(2) Assuming that the Bryson line is material, it appears to be undisputed that at the time of the survey in 1871 and the issuance of Grant 3290 thereon in 1872, the line from A to B was reputed to be the Bryson line, even though that repute was incorrect, and the surveyor located the first line of Grant 3290 under the belief that he was running with the true Bryson line, and he acted upon that belief, although it may have been erroneous.\nThe referee finds \u201cthat Defeat Eidge is located as plaintiff claims, being the ridge going up between the prongs of Little Eiver, in Tennessee, and tbe bead of Defeat Ridge culminates at and witb other converging ridges and forms tbe easternmost knob of tbe group of knobs known as Tbunderliead, on the State line between North Carolina and Tennessee, tbe said head of Defeat Ridge being at the point marked B on the official map\u2019.\"\nTbe Court finds that in making the survey in 1871 of tbe B. L. Sawyer entries, upon which Grant No. 3290 issued, in 1872 M. L. Kelly, tbe county surveyor, witb bis crew, surveyed from tbe said point \u201cA\u201d up tbe Deep Gap or Forester Ridge to tbe top of tbe Smoky Mountain at \u201cB\u201d at tbe bead of Defeat Ridge, and at tbe said point \u201cB\u201d made and marked a corner on a tree of tbe survey be was them making and upon which Grant No. 3290 issued. Tbe said tree was marked as a corner by M. L. Kelly in 1871, having been previously marked as a corner of tbe Bryson survey in 1867.\nTbe call for 1800 poles north to tbe Tennessee State line at tbe bead of Defeat Ridge is, in my opinion, controlling. There are two well defined objects that are unmistakable; one is tbe State line that divides North Carolina and Tennessee, and tbe other is Defeat Ridge. This ridge, as shown by tbe evidence, and not controverted, is one of tbe most prominent natural objects in tbe whole of that great range of tbe Smoky Mountains, and because of. its prominence has been long and well known to tbe citizens and inhabitants of both States of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as to tbe United States surveys and to geographers. It would be difficult to find a better defined and located natural object, or one better known in all that country. Tbe location of this right where it joins tbe Smoky Mountains and its relation to tbe State line was overwhelmingly established by tbe evidence, and tbe court found tbe fact to be that it was located at \u201cB.\u2019\nIt was also admitted that tbe dividing line between tbe States of Tennessee and North Carolina passed along tbe crest of tbe Smoky Mountains. So that we have here a remarkable conjunction, in fact, of both tbe descriptions mentioned in tbe surveyor\u2019s certificate of bis survey, and tbe grant issued thereon, viz., \u201cthe Tennessee line and Defeat Ridge.\u201d\nThese facts being practically admitted or indisputably ascertained, under tbe repeated and well settled decisions of this Court, it follows, as tbe legal result, that tbe first line of Grant 3290 begins at \u201cA\u201d and runs to \u201cB.\u201d As I read tbe eases, this rule of law may be regarded as an ancient one in this State, and so well settled that it can hardly be seriously questioned.\nAmong the many cases cited in tbe elaborate and learned brief of tbe plaintiff\u2019s counsel, we find tbe following to be especially in point, where tbe rule is most instructively applied to facts very similar to those in the ease under consideration: Miller v. Cherry, 56 N. C., 29; Jones v. Robinson, 78 N. C., 398; Flannigan v. Lee, 19 N. C., 430; Carson v. Burnett, 18 N. C., 558; Jones v. Bunker, 83 N. C., 327; Reid v. Schenck, 14 N. C., 65; Graybeal v. Powers, 76 N. C., 71; Waters v. Simmons, 52 N. C., 543.\nWhen a deed sufficiently identifies a thing by its known name, or other means, and then superadds, unnecessarily, to the description, such further description, though inaccurate, will not vitiate the previous and perfect description. Simpson v. King, 36 N. C., 11; Mortgage Co. v. Long, 113 N. C., 126; Proctor v. Pool, 15 N. C., 373.\nThe .head of Defeat Eidge is a natural object so commanding in its character that it answers the description fully, and is sufficient of itself to locate the second comer, regardless of whether the line runs with Bryson\u2019s line or not. The unnecessary and false description will be disregarded- and the line run to this controlling natural monument.\nIn Ehringhaus v. Cartright, 30 N. C., 42, it is said: \"Many of the rules respecting boundaries are examples of preferring one part of a description, turning out to be true, to another part, turning out to be untrue. The case of Proctor v. Pool, 4 Dev., 370, is an instance of the application of the rule to a general description of the thing devised, the Court holding that the effect of the true description was not to be weakened by a further and unnecessary false description.\u201d Smith v. Low, 24 N. C., 460.\nIn Miller v. Cherry, 56 N. C., 29, it is said: \u201cOur decision is made under the rule that where more than one description is given, and there is a discrepancy, that description will be adhered to as to which there is the least likelihood that a mistake would be committed, and that be rejected in regard to which mistakes are more apt to be made. This is a rule of frequent application. If a tract of land be described by natural objects, or corner trees, and also by course and distance, and there turns out to be a discrepancy, the latter description is rejected.\u201d\nIn Addington v. Jones, 52 N. C., 584, the Court said: \u201cThis rule, in respect to questions of boundary, presupposes that the description which is to control, and be put in the place of course and distance, has of itself sufficient certainty to locate the land, supposing the course and distance which it controls and contradicts to be stricken out of the grant.\u201d\nIn Stafford v. King, 94 Am. Dec., 308, it is laid down that the general rules in respect to locating land are: (1) By natural objects, such as rivers, mountains, lakes, creeks; (2) artificial marks, such as marked trees and lines; (3) course and distajo.ce.\nIn this case Chief Justice Marshall is quoted as having said that \u201cThe most material and most certain call shall control those which are less material and less certain.\u201d In this case it is laid down as a prime rule that the \u201cFootsteps of tbe surveyor must be followed, and the above rules are found to afford the best and most unerring guides to enable one-to do so.\u201d\nIn Doe v. Payne, 11 N. C., 71, it is said that \u201cWhen the natural boundary is unique it has properties peculiar to itself.\u201d A more distinctive, commanding, and controlling object could scarcely be thought of than the well known head of a great mountain ridge.\nIn Carson v. Burnett, 18 N. C., 558, it is said: \u201cThe object in all boundary questions is to find some certain evidence of what particular land was surveyed, or was intended to be conveyed. . . . When the call is for the line of another tract, it has also been held that course and distance may yield to it. But it is, obviously, not so decisive as the call for a natural boundary\nIn Waters v. Simmons, 52 N. C., 543, the Court stated: \u201cOne of the calls of the grant ... is, \u2018The'head of Spellar\u2019s Creek,\u2019 which is certainly a natural object,\u201d etc. \u201cIt was the duty of the court, then, to instruct the jury that, as a construction of law, the head of \u2018Spellar\u2019s Creek\u2019 was one of the corners of the defendant\u2019s tract of land,\u201d etc. This is precisely in point in the case at bar. The call is to the State line at the head of Defeat Ridge. Defeat Ridge is a \u201cnatural object.\u201d Its head is at the Tennessee line and it was the duty of the judge to declare that it was one of the corners of the grant (No. 3290) to W. L. Love.\nThe defendants insist that the way to go to \u201cB\u201d from the admitted beginning at \u201cA\u201d is to run from \u201cA\u201d to \u201cD,\u201d the head of Big Chestnut Ridge, and the defendants\u2019 alleged northeast comer; thence westerly along the top of the mountain to \u201cB,\u201d a distance of 3 or 4 miles, and then run back in an easterly direction over precisely the same line and same distance to \u201cD\u201d and then resume the survey of the lines of G-rant 3290 along the mountain until they turn southwardly to the beginning.\nThe referee so concluded, and his judgment was affirmed by the court below. In view of the well settled principles of law set forth in the cases that we have cited, I see neither reason in nor authority for such ruling.\nThe defendant, admitting that the Bryson line was actually run as claimed by the plaintiff, undertakes to explain it by saying that the straight line from \u201cA\u201d to \u201cD,\u201d intended as a Bryson line, was not actually run and marked from \u201cA\u201d to \u201cD\u201d because the line would run through a country badly infested with rattlesnakes, and, therefore, they ran from \u201cA\u201d to \u201cB\u201d and by triangulation platted the true Bryson line from \u201cA\u201d to \u201cD.\u201d\nThis explanation may or may not be true, but it cannot have the effect of changing the controlling call for Defeat Ridge. It is but added pro.of that the Bryson line was actually run -where the plaintiff claims it was, and that is consistent with the call from the chestnut oak to Defeat Ridge.\nThere are several exceptions to the evidence, wbicb are set out in the assignments of error and commented on in the plaintiff\u2019s brief, some of which, in my opinion, are well taken and entitle the plaintiff to a new trial, but in the view I take of the case it is not necessary to prolong this opinion by commenting upon them.\nI am of opinion that upon the admitted facts the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the tract of land bounded and described in Grant 3290, beginning at chestnut oak \u201cA\u201d and running to \u201cB\u201d at Defeat Eidge,\nThe Chief Justice concurs in this opinion.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Bbown, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Theodore F. Davidson, James H. Merrimon, Fred 8. Johnston, and Landon Q. Bell for plaintiffs.", "F. A. Sondley, A. S. Barnard, A. M. Fry, and W. L. Taylor for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY and HAZEL LUMBER COMPANY v. MONTVALE LUMBER COMPANY, J. E. COBURN, and JOHN PROCTOR.\n(Filed 24 May, 1915.)\n1. State\u2019s Lands-MSrants \u2014 Surveys\u2014Lines and Boundaries \u2014 Extrinsic Evidence.\nThe principle applied to the construction of grants of land from the State, or by deed, that the actual location of a line made before or co-temporaneously in a survey will control a variance made in the description of the grant or deed, does not obtain unless the line has been marked and cornered for the purpose of a correct description in the grant or deed, and then only when the line marked is so connected with the deed, either by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, as to create a presumption as to the intent of the grantor that it should be one of the boundaries.\n2. Same \u2014 Intent.\nWhere the application of the principle is permissible to show by parol evidence that the lines described in a State\u2019s grant of lands is not in conformity with the lines of a survey made in contemplation of the grant, the vital question is the intent of the grantor, and the rule admitting parol evidence should he administered with caution and not carried beyond its well defined limits of serving only to locate the land intended to he conveyed by operating to aid the description contained in the deed.\n3. Same \u2014 Corners\u2014Conduct of Parties.\nIn order that the line of a survey may vary the description given in a grant of land, it is required that it should have been run and marked before the execution of the deed or cotemporaneously therewith, and intended by the parties as one of the lines of the lands to be conveyed, and this intention must be clearly inferred from the conduct of the parties in regard thereto, the intention being as essential as the fact that the line was surveyed and a corner made.\n4. Same \u2014 Triangulation.\nWhere the parties in an action for lands claim respectively under a junior and senior grant from the State, and the controversy depends upon the location of the dividing line between the two grants, represented on the map by lines from an admitted beginning point, A, the one claiming it to be from A to B and other from A to D, and it appears that the line from A to D was too difficult of survey, and the parties established it by means of triangulation, that is, by running from A to B and then to D, the land in controversy lying within the triangle A, B, and D: Held, that it being the intention of the parties that the true line should run from A to D and that the line was partly run from A to B, and a corner made at B was only for the purpose of ascertaining the former line, by the stated method, for the purposes of the description in the grant, the intention of the parties will control the call in the grant for a line from A to B, and especially when the latter is coupled with a call for the line of another tract, which is well established and also is in conformity with other points or corners given in the grant.\n5. State\u2019s Lands \u2014 Grants \u2014 Extrinsic Evidence \u2014 Natural Boundaries \u2014 Conflicting Calls \u2014 Interpretation.\nWhere it is the evident purpose of the grant of land, as gathered therefrom, that one of its lines shall coincide with the line of B and run therewith to his northeast corner, and corner there at a sugar maple, which line and tree are definitely ascertained and located, it may not by legal interpretation be made to run beyond to a given, fixed, or natural hound-ary, as in this case, to the \u201cintersection of the head of Defeat Ridge with the Tennessee line,\u201d for such would violate the evident intention of the parties, and the language should be construed as if it read, \u201ccornering at B\u2019s northeast corner, supposed to be on the Tennessee line at the head of Defeat Ridge\u201d (Qherry v. Slade, 7 N. C., 82, cited and applied); and it is Further held,, that the mere understanding of the parties, without more, as to the location of B\u2019s line and northeast corner, cannot control the call, as an actual or practical location of the line.\n6. Appeal'and Error \u2014 Reference\u2014Findings.\n' The findings of a referee, confirmed by the judge, will not be disturbed on appeal when there is evidence to support the findings.\n7. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Evidence\u2014Declarations\u2014Surveys.\nDeclarations of a person, in favor of his own interest at the time, as to the location of a divisional line or boundary of lands are incompetent evidence as to those claiming under him, and in this case it is held that certain other of his declarations concerning that line were properly limited by the court to what was actually done on the survey.\n8. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Evidence,\u2014Declarations\u2014Interests.\nWhere the declarant has parted with his interest in lands, what he may thereafter say about the lines and boundaries cannot be used against those claiming under him, irrespective of the question of litem, motam.\n9. Evidence \u2014 Depositions\u2014Testimony of Witness \u2014 Effect.\nDepositions taken in a cause, which have been destroyed before they were opened and passed upon, are not competent as evidence (Revisal, sec. 1652); nor can a witness testify as to their contents, especially where he is not able to give their substance, but merely the impression they made upon his mind.\n10. Evidence \u2014 Boundaries\u2014Appeal and Error \u2014 Harmless Error.\nHeld, in this case, that certain testimony of a witness as to line trees upon a boundary of lands in dispute was not sufficiently definite; and were it otherwise, its exclusion would not be reversible error.\n11. Evidence \u2014 Declarations\u2014Attorney and Client.\nThe declarations of an attorney respecting the boundaries of his client\u2019s land are not binding upon his client, and incompetent as evidence in an action to determine them.\n12. Evidence \u2014 Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Grants \u2014 Copies\u2014Lost Originals\u2014 Search \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nA duly certified copy of the registry of a grant is competent evidence without the necessity of accounting for the nonproduction of the original (Revisal, sec. 988), and if by affidavit a material variance between the copy and the original in such entry is suggested, the court by rule or order may require the production of the original of such deed, in which case it must be produced or its absence duly accounted for according to the course and practice of the courts, which was sufficiently done in this case.\n13. Evidence \u2014 Rejected Instructions.\nIt was incompetent, in this case, to show that the court refused certain instructions in another suit, the same being res inter alios acta.\n14. Evidence \u2014 Junior Grants \u2014 Prior Surveys \u2014 Boundaries.\nWhile the description in a junior grant may not be evidence of the location of lines and boundaries of a senior grant, the rule does not apply when the survey to establish the line in dispute was made prior to the date of the senior grant; and in this case the map and certificate of survey were properly admitted as evidence in corroboration.\n15. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Corners\u2014Declarations.\nWhere the location of a certain corner of lands is relevant and material to the controversy, testimony as to a conversation between a witness and others in relation thereto was properly excluded where the witness could not name those present at the time or give the substance of what was said, but only the impression on him.\nBrown, J., dissenting; Clark, C. J., concurring in the dissenting opinion.\nAppeal by both parties from Qa/rter, J., at Special June Term, 1914, of SwaiN.\nThis action was brought to quiet the title to a large tract of land in the county of Swain, formerly Macon, on the waters of Hazelnut Creek, and alleged to be covered by a grant of the State to W. L. Love, and for damages on account of a trespass upon said land by the defendants. The cas\u00a9 was referred to Hon, J\". D. Murphy, wbo filed a report, which, was reviewed by Judge Carter upon exceptions. We cannot do better than insert here an extract from the findings, showing the contentions of the-parties:\n\u201cThe plaintiffs claimed the land in controversy by mesne conveyances under State Grant No. 3290, issued to W. L. Love, assignee of B. L.\nSawyer, bearing date 3 May, 1812, and recorded in the register\u2019s, office for Macon County, in Book N, pages 12 and 13, on 18 June, 1873, and also registered in Swain County, in Book 0, page 601, on 3 October, 1894. The first call in Grant No. 3290 is as follows: \u2018On the waters of Hazelnut Creek, beginning at chestnut oak on the trail leading from the mouth of Sugar Fork Creek to the Deep Gap, beginning and running with Col. T. D. Bryson\u2019s line 1,800 poles north to the Tennessee State line at the head of Defeat Ridge, cornering with Bryson\u2019s northeast corner.\u2019 From the end of the first call the -grant runs in a general easterly direction with the top of the Smoky Mountain by various calls to a buckeye on the top of Bald Ridge; thence down the Bald Ridge to a white oak at the high rocks, thence to the beginning. It .was admitted that the beginning call of Grant No. 3290 was at the point marked \u2018A\u2019 on the \u2018Court Map.\u2019 The plaintiffs contended that the first line of said grant runs along the Deep Gap or Forester Ridge in a northerly direction to the point on said map marked \u00a3B,\u2019 Thunderhead, being at the point where Defeat Ridge runs up to and forms a part of Thunderhead, and that from there it ran easterly with the Tennessee and North Carolina State line, passing the point marked \u2018Sugar Maple\u2019 at \u2018D\u2019 on the \u2018Court Map,\u2019 and thence continuing easterly to the Bald Ridge, some distance east of the sugar maple. The defendants claim title to the land in controversy, under State Grant No. 138, issued to George S. Walker, bearing date 8 March, 1881, and recorded in the office pf the register of deeds for Swain County in Book B, page 476, 20 April, 1881. One of the calls in Grant No. 138 extends from the chestnut oak at \u2018A\u2019 on the \u2018Court Map\u2019 in a northeasterly direction to the sugar maple at the head of Big Chestnut Ridge, being the point marked \u2018D\u2019 on the \u2018Court Map,\u2019 and the defendants contended that the first call of Grant No. 3290 must run with this call in the Walker grant from the point \u2018A\u2019 on the \u2018Court Map\u2019 to the point \u2018D.\u2019\n\u201cIt was admitted that the line A-D was not actually run and marked (throughout its entire length) before the grant was taken out, but the defendant offered evidence tending to show that the line was actually run and marked for a short distance from the chestnut oak at A in the direction of the sugar maple at D, and for a short distance from the \u2022 sugar maple D in the direction of the chestnut oak at A; but it was contended by the defendants that the line was ascertained by a method known to surveyors as triangulation and by platting, except as to what had been actuually run as aforesaid. By these adverse contentions of parties, the triangle A-B-D-A defines the territory in controversy.\u201d\nThe referee found as a fact that the line A-D was marked for a short distance at both ends, and the court, in its general findings of facts, states that it was marked at its northeast end from the sugar maple at D in the direction of the chestnut oak, the place of beginning at A, the latter being admitted by the parties to be the beginning corner of Grant No. 3290. It was further found that in the survey made under the entries upon which Grant No. 138 was issued, the first line was run from A, at the chestnut oak, to B, at Defeat Ridge, not for the purpose of establishing that as a line of the T. D. Bryson tract, but for the purpose of triangulation, in order to fix the location and length of the line A-D, that is, from tbe chestnut oak at A to the sugar maple at'D, and this was done because it was represented that between the chestnut oak and the sugar maple the land was covered with thickets and infested with poisonous snakes. The method of. triangulation was suggested by the surveyor, and it was adopted as a safe method of determining the line from A to D and as avoiding the dangers and difficulties of making .a survey over the land between A and ,D. Both the referee and the judge have found as a fact that the line of the Bryson tract called for in Grant No. 3290 had been well established, and runs from A to D, and the northeast corner of the tract is at the sugar maple, or D on the map. It is also stated as a fact by the referee and the judge that when Sawyer, hy Kelly, surveyor, made the survey for Grant No. 3290; it was intended by them that the line A-D between the chestnut oak and the sugar maple should be the first line of the survey and the tract of land to be granted. The court also found as follows: \u201cIn respect of the survey made in 1871 for Grant 3290, the B. L. Sawyer entries, the court finds that said survey began at the chestnut oak at \u2018A\u2019 and was carried to the point \u2018B\u2019 at Thunderhead, the same being the head of Defeat Ridge, retracing the survey theretofore made in 1867, for the purposes heretofore stated, and that from the point \u2018B\u2019 upon the'second line of said survey the line was run. easterly to the point where the Locust Ridge reaches the North Carolina and Tennessee State.line, the second line of said survey, following the general course of the second line of the triangle made upon the survey of 1867, as above found, and passing about 102 poles to the eastward of the head of Big Chestnut Ridge. The court finds that B. L. Sawyer was present upon this survey, and that the intention of Sawyer and the surveyor upon said survey was to establish the chestnut oak at \u2018A,\u2019 a corner in the Bryson survey, as the beginning point in said survey, and that the western line of said survey should coincide with the eastern line of the survey of 1867, and that the northwest corner of said last (first) mentioned survey should be identical with the northeast corner of the Bryson survey of 1867. And in respect of both surveys it was found as a fact that the line from \u2018A\u2019 to \u2018B\u2019 was not actually measured, along said straight line, but was measured along the course of Deep Gap, or Forester Ridge, and that a corner was marked at the point where the first and second lines of the triangle made upon the Byrson survey of 1867 intersect at the State line at Thunderhead. Defeat Ridge is located as plaintiff claims, being the ridge going up between the prongs of Little River, in Tennessee, and the head of Defeat Ridge culminates at and with other converging ridges, and forms the easternmost knob of the group of knobs known as Thunderhead, on the State line between North Carolina and Tennessee, the said head of Defeat Ridge being at the point marked \u2018B\u2019 on the official map.\u201d\nThere were other findings of the referee, which were approved by the judge, and should be stated here, viz.: \u201cI further find that B. L. Sawyer knew in 1871, at the time of said survey by M. L. Kelly, that there was no Bryson in line along and up said. Deep Gap or Forester Ridge, and he further knew, as marker and guide of the surveying party under T. S. Siler, that the line of T. D. Bryson runs from a sugar maple at the head of Big Chestnut Ridge, at the point marked \u00a3D\u2019 on the official map, to the point marked \u00a3A\u2019 on the official map. I further find that in 1871, the said B. L. Sawyer knew that the true eastern line of the T. D. Bryson land ran from the sugar maple at the head of Big Chestnut Ridge in a southwestwardly direction to the chestnut oak at the point \u2018A\u2019 on the official map. I further find that the northeast comer of the survey of the T. D. Bryson line is -at the sugar maple at the head of Big Chestnut Ridge at the point marked \u00a3D\u2019 on the official map.\u201d\nThere are many findings of fact bearing upon the general question as to the location of the \u201cBryson line\u201d and the first line of the tract described in Grant No. 3290 to ~W. L. Love, under which the plaintiff claims, but it is not necessary to set them out, as those stated will be sufficient for a clear understanding of the contentions of the parties and the question presented in this appeal.\nThe referee found with the defendants in the appeal, that the first line of plaintiff\u2019s Grant No. 3290 was the one from A to D, and not from A to B, as contended by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land covered by said grant or of any land west of the said line from A to D, except as stated and decided in the defendant\u2019s appeal, but that the defendant Montvale Lumber Company is the owner of the land covered by said Grant No. 3290, with the exception aforesaid, it being also a part of the land covered by Grant No. 138, issued to George S. Walker, and described by metes and bounds in the judgment. The judgment may be referred to for greater certainty.\nBoth parties appealed from the judgment. We will proceed now to the consideration of the plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\nTheodore F. Davidson, James H. Merrimon, Fred 8. Johnston, and Landon Q. Bell for plaintiffs.\nF. A. Sondley, A. S. Barnard, A. M. Fry, and W. L. Taylor for defendants." }, "file_name": "0080-01", "first_page_order": 132, "last_page_order": 157 }