{
  "id": 8696723,
  "name": "Den on the demise of Sandifer v. Foster",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den on the demise of Sandifer v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1795-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hayw. 271"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.357,
    "sha256": "d523db4db41c90ad598ac4ae635aa80b99103e11445e4b346174f6e381fdd17d",
    "simhash": "1:fead2bf8a62555f8",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den on the demise of Sandifer v. Foster."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam,\nWilliams and Haywood,\nafter argument \u2014 the river in this case, must be considered as the boundary of Gee\u2019s patent \u2014 it has always been thus uniformly decided in our courts.\nThe jury found accordingly, and there was judgment, accordingly' \u2014 Baker for Plaintiff, Keys for Defendant.\nNote. \u2014 Vide Hartsfield v. Westbrook, post 258\u2014note to Bradford v. Hill, ante 22.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Williams and Haywood,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDENTON,\nOCTOBER TERM, 1795.\nDen on the demise of Sandifer v. Foster.\nThe last line of a boundary was from a white oak, (which stood half a mile from the river) thence along the river to the beginning : held, that the river is the boundary.\nEjectment. The land in controversy was patented in ttyeyear 1706, by one Gee, and a transfer of two hundred acres of the tract was made to Briclgers by endorsement on the deed. In 1752, Bridgers conveyed to Robert San-difer, who in 1765, devised to his son Robert Sandifer, after the death of ttie devisor\u2019s widow; but in the. mean time, he gave the lands to her for her life. She is yet alive, and bad) conveyed the lands to the Plaintiffs. In the year 1780, John Sandifer obtained a grant from the State, and conveyed to his son Robert, who conveyed to tiie Defendant apart of this land. Gee\u2019s patent began at the mouth of Dividing run, thence north, thence cast, thence south to a white-oak, thence along the river to the beginning. This white-oak stood half a mile from the river ; and if the line be run a direct course from thence to the beginning, a large part of the land described in the Plaintiff\u2019s grant, will be left out of Gee\u2019s patent; but if the ilver is deemed to be the boundary, tin1 land described in the Defendant\u2019s grant will then be included in Gee\u2019s patent, and of course, be also included in Bridger\u2019s deed."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 279,
  "last_page_order": 280
}