{
  "id": 11984928,
  "name": "Blount vs. Benbury",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blount v. Benbury",
  "decision_date": "1805-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "353",
  "last_page": "354",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 353"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 353"
    }
  ],
  "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": 162,
    "char_count": 2102,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.352,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7710994026850012e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7120380377388797
    },
    "sha256": "e4ad89c0cfd4d60ba7f0dd0c74ff21dedd81ddf22f08e66d38efa7aadd5886e1",
    "simhash": "1:87810a6378786ab7",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Blount vs. Benbury."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hall, Judge.\nIt cannot be received as the copy of a grant, but it may as a circumstance to shew that there was once a gram: in existence.\nIt was read. The dispute concerned the title of land between two parallel lines \u2014 The lower of them Was said to be J. Blount\u2019s patent line ; and if so, defendant was not in possession of plaintiff\u2019s land 5 but if the. upper parallel line was J. Blount\u2019s patent line, then the defendant was in the possession of the plaintiff\u2019s land. The patent under which the defendant claimed, called for Beasly\u2019s line and J. Blount\u2019s line, S. 85 E. as one of the boundaries ; and the grantor to Beabury, in 1788, called for J. Blount\u2019s line, and marked the line now contended for by the defendant, at the time of malcmg his deed. One question was, whether the line thus marked, should be considered the line which the deed extended to $ or whether J. Elotm-.\u2019s line, wherever it might be, should be considered the boundarv of the deed, notwithstanding the demarcation.\nHall, Judge. The act of limitation would make a title for the defendant, if the deed extended to the marked line \u2014 but l am of opinion it extended no further than to J. Blount\u2019s line, whoever that was. The demarcation is not an ascertainment of the line, which he meant as James Blount\u2019s line, called for in dm deed 5 and of course the defendant has no colour of title to the land in dispute. Also, though the patent calls for Beasley\u2019s line, and the patentee\u2019s old line, S, 8.5 E. for one boundary, still the jury may consider Beasley\u2019s line the boundary, so far as it goes ; and then the marked line, which is 51 poles to the north o\u00ed it and parallel to the line drawn from the termination of Beasle* \u2019 . the same course with Beasley\u2019s, because there have been nwr.v decisions in this country which warrants departure from the \u2019\u25a0line described in a deed or patent, to follow a raaiked line which the jury have good reason to believe was the true one.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hall, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edenton,\nOctober Term, 1805.\nBlount vs. Benbury.\nuT\u2019HE plaintiff offered a copy of a grant from the Secretary\u2019s office : it was not signed by the Governor."
  },
  "file_name": "0353-01",
  "first_page_order": 357,
  "last_page_order": 358
}