{
  "id": 8697126,
  "name": "HAITHCOCK & HEARNE v. SWIFT ISLAND MANUFATURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haithcock v. Swift Island Manufaturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "410",
  "last_page": "415",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 410"
    }
  ],
  "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": "12 Ired. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683541
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/34/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ired. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/34/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 487,
    "char_count": 9763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.392552054677732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2755967625911781
    },
    "sha256": "f35d01ef64627844ddf1066704439e53ad43eb86e026fb6485a3566ca0afb837",
    "simhash": "1:ec50721bc938722c",
    "word_count": 1765
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HAITHCOCK & HEARNE v. SWIFT ISLAND MANUFATURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peaeson, C. J.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s case rests upon the ground' that by the deed conveying to him the land, on one side of the* river, \u201cwith all the appurtenances thereto belonging,\u201d he acquired title to one half of the ferry. In other words, the ownership of the land on one side of the river draws to it one-half of the ferry. This proposition cannot be maintained. We concur with his Honor in the conclusion that the plaintiff did not make out a case.\nIt is true, where the right to a public ferry is annexed to a tract of land, as \u201cappurtenant thereto,\u201d a conveyance of the land \u201c with its appurtenances \u201d passes the ferry ; this is assumed to be the principle of law in State v. Willis, Busb. 223, and in Biggs v. Ferrell, 12 Ired., 1. But in those eases the franchise of a public ferry was annexed and appurtenant to the land; whereas, in our case the franchise \u201cto keep the ferry and receive the tolls, for ought that appears is a right \u201c en gt'oss \u201d like a right of common or an advowson \u201c en gross'\u2019 and has never been annexed to the land and made appurtenant thereto, either on the one side of the river or the other or to the land lying on both sides of the river at the termini of the ferry.\nThe ferry was established by the Plank Road Company under the authority of an Act 16th February, 1859, and was used in connection with the plank road and as a part thereof.\nIt is set out as a fact in the case : \u201c The plank road having fallen into decay and being discontinued as a turnpike, one Christian, the owner of the land on both sides of the river, claimed the franchise of the ferry, and kept it up until his death.\u201d After his death the land, on one side of the river, was bought by the plaintiff, and the land on the other side of the river was bought by the defendant. The deeds to both being for the lands, together with \u201call the appurtenances thereto belonging,\u201d and the defendant has since claimed the ferry and kept it up. The charter of the Plank Road Company may have been forfeited for nun-use, but there has been no judgment, so far as the case discloses by which the charter is vacated ; so according to facts before us, the plank road is still in existence, and is the owner of this ferry, and above all there is no evidence that Uhristian ever acquired title to the ferry, or in any way annexed the right to the ferry as an appurtenant either to the tract of land which he owned on the Stanly side or to the tract which he owned on the Montgomery side, or to both. So for might that appears the title to the ferry is still in the Plank Road Company, and if it was acquired by Christian, it does not appear that he attached it as appurtenant to his land on the one side of the river or the other, or to both, or whether was not kept by him as a franchise \u201c en gross.\u201d\nThe plaintiffs did not prove title.\niNo error.\nPeR Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peaeson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Neill McKay, S. J. Pemberton, and J. W. Hinsdale, for appellant.",
      "M. J. Montgomery and Bailey McOorTde, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HAITHCOCK & HEARNE v. SWIFT ISLAND MANUFATURING COMPANY.\nA deed conveying to A the land on one side of a river, \u201cwith all the appurtenances thereto belonging,\u201d does not convey the title to one half of a Ferry which is not annexed as of right as appurtenant to said land.\n(State v. Willis, Bush. 323; Biggs v. Ferrell, 12 Ired. 1, cited and approved.)\nCivil aotioN to recover title and possession of one half of a ferry, tried before Buxton, at Fall Term, 1874, of Staktly Superior Court.\nThe ferry in question had been established by the Fayette-ville and Albemarle Plank Road Company, by authority of an act of the General Assembly, ratified 16th February, 1859. It was located at Swift Island, across the Pee Dee river. The plank road having fallen into decay, and being discontinued as a turnpike, S. IT. Christian, who was the riparian owner on both sides of the river, claimed the franchise of the ferry, and at the time of his death, in 1864, was seized of land on both sides of the river, and keeping up the ferry.\nAfter the death of S. EL Christian, upon failure of his personal estate, his administrators instituted proceedings in the Superior Court of Montgomery county, to sell the real estate for the payment of his debts.\nThe petition for that purpose was filed at Fall Term, 1867, and at that term a decree was made authorizing the sale of all the lands, mills, and other real estate mentioned in the petition. Among the tracts included was the \u201cmill tract\u201d in Montgomery, and the \u201cDavis\u201d tract in Stanly. These tracts were described fully, but neither in the petition nor in the decree of sale, is there anything said about the ferry.\nThere was a report of sale made to Spring Term, 1868, by the administrator, in reference to the \u201c mill tract.\u201d The report was as follows, to-wit: \u201c The mill on the Montgomery side, and factory, with out-houses and other appurtenances, was bid off by Nathaniel Knight, for the sum of $3,200. D. N. Patterson afterward raised the bid to $3,400, and gave his note, with C. W. Wooley and J. T. Bradly as surety.\u201d\nThis sale occurred on Nov. 14th, 1867, and was confirmed at Spring Term, 1868.\n\u2022 In reference to the lands on the Stanly side, they report that the lands did not bring a fair price, and that the purchaser-had not complied with the terms of sale, and accordingly a resale of the Stanly lands, was ordered.\nAt Spring Term, 1869, they report the sale of the Stanly land as having occurred on Eeb. 15th, 1869; that the William Davis tract was bought by one J. G. Christian, for $125. This sale was confirmed at that Term, and upon payment of the purchase money the administrators, in pursuance of the order of the Court, executed a deed, in which the land is described as follows, to-wit:\n\u201c All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the county of Stanly, and described as follows: lying on the west side of Pee Dee river, adjoining the land of William Davis and others, bounded as follows, viz: Beginning at a white oak on the bank of the river, just below the mill, and running thence due west with Ilaithcock\u2019s and Heron\u2019s mill tract, (formerly S. H. Christian\u2019s,) 29 chains, to a stone heap in the field, corner of No. 5, thence south 50\u00b0 30', east 23 chains to \u2022a post oak, by a post oak, thence south 60, east 4 chains to a corner on a line of the mill tract, by a post oak and hickory pointers, thence with said line north 46, east 22 chains, 50 links, to the river, thence up the river to the beginning, containing seventy-five acres, more or less, to have and to hold, to him the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging.\u201d\nOn the 22d of January, 1870, J. G. Christian and his wife executed a deed, conveying this property to the plaintiff, with a similar description.\nUpon the payment of the purchase money for the l\u00a3 mill \u201d tract in Montgomery, the administrators executed a deed on the 25th of September, 1871, to D. N. Patterson, who purchased for the benefit of the Swift Island Manufacturing Company, of which he was a member. This was subsequent to the institution of this suit, which was commenced 12th of September, 1871.\nThere was conflicting evidence as to whether, at the time of the sale of the :i mill \u201d tract on the 4th of November, 1867, the ferry was mentioned as being put up for sale, with that tract, witnesses testifying both ways and contradicting each other.\nThe deed to D. N. Patterson was for the tract lying between the widow\u2019s dower, Robinson\u2019s line, and the river, containing about 200 acres, including the mill, factory and appurtenances, operatives houses, islands, ferry and fishery.\nIt was in evidence that the report of sale wras made by the administrators of S. H. Christian, to Spring Term, 1868, of Montgomery Superior Court, of the land sold on Nov. 14th, 1367, in which was included the \u201c mill\u201d tract on Montgomery side, that the report and decree of confirmation made at that Term were for a time misplaced, and by leave of the Court another report and decree supposed to conform to the original, were allowed to be substituted in their place. Afterwards the original report and decree were found and restored, and it appearing that there was a variance between the original and the substituted record of report and decree, in this respect, viz: That the ferry at Swift Island was not mentioned in the original record, but was in the substitute, by order of the Court, the original report and decree was restored, and the substitute stricken out. All this was done by order of the Superior-Court of Montgomery county, after notice to the parties interested. The substituted report and decree were filed previous-to the institution of this suit, they were stricken out and the original record reinstated at Spring Term, 1874, of this Court.\nThe plaintiffs asked the Court to charge the jury that bj their purchase of the \u201c William Davis\u201d tract, on the Stanly side of the river, they acquired the right to one half of the ferry as appendant and appurtenant to that tract, they being-owners to the thread of the stream.\nHis Honor declined to give the charge asked for, and charged the jury \u201c that while the plaintiffs as riparian owners had a right to go to the thread of the stream, they could go no further-under their deed, consequently they could not be joint owners of the ferry franchise, which necessarily extended to both sides of the river; that the plaintiffs had to recover upon the strength of their own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the defendant\u2019s, and that upon the showing made they were not entitled to recover one half of the ferry.\nTo this ruling the plaintiffs excepted, but in deference to-the opinion of his Honor, submitted to a non-suit, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nNeill McKay, S. J. Pemberton, and J. W. Hinsdale, for appellant.\nM. J. Montgomery and Bailey McOorTde, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0410-01",
  "first_page_order": 420,
  "last_page_order": 425
}