#### JOHN MILLER *vs.*HENRY HEART.

In a proceeding under the Processioning act where the processioner hbfe* beeii stopped in running the lines by a party claiming the land, it is not necessary to shew that such party had previous notice that the lines were about to-be run.

The report of a processioner that he has been stopped by a party in running a disputed line, constitutes, between the parties claiming and disputing that line, a cause of record, and each, withoúí further notice, must be presumed-to know what is judicially done therein.

An objection to any of the commissioners appointed by the court is in the nature of a challenge, and should be brought forward when the"appointment is about to be made.

The adjudication of the commissioners affects only the rights of the parties' contesting.

The cases of 1 Hay. 405-. *Wilson*v *Shuford,*3 Murph.-5U4, and *Carpenter*v *Whitworth,*3 Ired. 204, cited and approved.

Appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Superior Court of Law of Davidson county, at Fall Term; 1843, bis Honor Judge Manly, presiding.

At February Term, 1843, of Davidson County Court, Azariah Williams, processioner for the said county, made a report to the said court, setting forth, that, being called on to'procession the land of John Miller, (the present plaintiff,) he did, on the 2d of February, 1843, after it had been certified to him that due notice had been given, cohimence “on the east bank of the Yadkin at a hickory stump, then run thence North eighty-five degrees Fast, forty chains twenty-one links to a black oak, Bonner’s corner, then North two and an half degrees West, sixty-five chains eighth-five'links to -a post-oak, and then was about to proceed to run South eighty-*24eight degrees West, seventy-eight chains to a white oak *on*l*le 1^18 anc* *was forbidden*to proceed any farther by Henry Heart, (the present defendant;) said Heart contends that the land is his — that it runs from the post-oak South eighty-seven and an half degress West, fifteen chains, thence South ; consequently the lines remain in dispute.”— Upon this return of the processioner, the County Court, at that term, ordered a writ to issue, and the same issued accordingly, directed to the sheriff, which, after reciting that the said processioner *“*had made a report to the court that he was called on to procession the land of John Miller on the 2d of February, 1843, and was stopped *by Henry*Heart, when about to run from a post oak South eighty-eight West, seventy-eight chains to a white-oak on the bank of the Yad-kin,” commanded the sheriff to summon five persons therein named, “ as commissioners to attend with the procession-er, and run and settle said disputed line.” At the succeeding term, the commissioners made a report to the said court under their signatures and seals in the words following, viz.

“State of North Carolina, Davidson County.

In obedience to an order of Davidson County Court, made at February Term, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-three, appointing the undersigned” (here setting out the names fully) “freeholders of the said county to proceed with the processioner of said county, Azariah Williams, to establish the line of land in dispute between John Miller of the one part and Henry Heart of the other part, do report that we proceeded with Azariah Williams, processioner as aforesaid, who had, when processioning said land, been *forbidden*by Henry Heart, and on the eighth *day of*March, in the said year 1843, we commenced at a post-oak, where said Williams was stopped by said Henry Heart when processioning said land, running thence South eighty-eight degrees West, seventy-eight chains and forty-two links to the Yadkin River bank to a white-oak, and we did *possession*arid establish the line in dispute between the said parties as above set forth, and did establish the said line as the said *25John Miller did contend should be between him and Henry Heart, all the parties being present at the said processioning and establishing said line, and after hearing all the allegations and proofs offered by both parties, we became fully satisfied the line and boundaries of said land were as above set forth, and we establish them accordingly, this the eighth day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-three. Given under our hands and seals.” To this report the defendant in the County Court filed the following exceptions: *First.*No sufficient and legal notice was. served upon the defendant, previously to proceedings by processioner, when said processioner was stopped and forbidden to proceed by said defendant. */Secondly;*the names of the persons making the report are not the same as the names of the persons to whom the Commission was directed. *Thirdly;*commissioners Clouse and Douthat are relations of the plaintiff, and therefore incapacitated to act as jurors in the case. *Fourthly;*no notice was given to the defendant that the processioner and commissioners were about to procession the land, or that a commission to that intent had issued. *Fifthly;*the report is ambiguous and inconsistent, stating at one time that the commissioners had established the line in dispute to be 78 chains and 42 links in length, and again, “ that they did establish the said line as the said Miller did contend,” whereas it appears by the report of the processioner that the line claimed by the said Miller was 78 chains in length. Sixthly; that the commissioners, having established neither the line claimed by the plaintiff nor that claimed by the defendant, the court would not know to which party to adjudge costs. *Seventhly;*that the commissioners, instead of processioning the line as ordered by the court, have, as their report shews, merely *possessioned*it, and without suggesting any possible meaning of the latter expression, the defendant insists that it cannot, by any construction, be held to indicate a compliance with their commission. *Eighthly;*that the entire proceedings on the-part of the plaintiff have been illegal, null and void, and that the report of the commissioners and in-*26both in form and substance. *Ninthly*; that legal 'owners of the land in dispute, to wit, the heirs of Robert Williams, have had no notice of any part of the proceed-jDgS_ *Tenthly,*that the processioner, in his report, did not set forth the lines in dispute, nor the circumstances under which the dispute arose.

These exceptions were all overruled by the County Court, and the report confirmed. The defendant thereupon appealed to the Superior Court, where, upon argument, the í'eport was ordered to be set aside, and, from this order, the plaintiff, by permission of the Superior Court, appealed to this court.

*Mendenhall*for the plaintiff.

*JBoyden*tor the defendant,

cited the case of *Carpenter*v *Whitworth,*3 Ired. Rep. 204.

Gaston, J.

This case has been submitted here upon the exceptions taken in the County Court, and we have accordingly examined them. Several of these create no difficulty, and may readily be disposed of. Among these are *thq first*and *fourth,*which except to the said report, the *first,*because it does not appear that previous legal notice was given to Heart to attend, at the time when the processioning was first attempted, and the processioner forbidden by him to proceed ; and *ihe fourth,*that it does not appear that legal' notice was given to him to attend the commissioners, when about to procession under the order of court, or that he had knowledge of the issuing of the commission. It is a plain principle of law founded on reason, that when a person, entitled to notice of any judicial proceeding, actually attends thereat and takes no exception for want of notice, he waives all objection for the want or insufficiency thereof. A voluntary appearance saves the necessity of service of process. 1 Hay. 405. As to the knowledge of the issuing of the commission, the report of the processioner, that he had been stopped by the defendant in running the disputed line, constituted between the parties claiming and disputing that line, *27a cause of record, and each must be presumed to know what is judicially done therein. *Wilson*v *Shuford,*3 Mur. 504. *Carpenter*v Whitworth, 3 Ired. 204. The *second*exception, for that the report is not made by the persons named in the commission, is altogether unfounded in fact. The persons *named*in the commission and those *named*in the report are identical; and the only pretext for the exception is, that one of them, “Henry Eakley,”did not, in attaching his *signature*to the report, write his Christian name at full length. • The *third*and *ninth*exceptions are untenable, for they are not shewn to be founded in fact. — . The *third*is, for that two of the commissioners were of kin to the plaintiff, and the *ninth,*for that the legal ownership of the lands in dispute was in the heirs of Robert Williams, and they had no notice of the proceedings. Now of either of these allegations uo;evidence was offered, nor was either of the exceptions supported by affidavit. .But, besides, the matter of the *third*exception, which is in the nature of a challenge, ought to have been brought forward when the appointment of commissioners was made; and as to the ob« jection made in the *ninth*exception, it is enough that before the processioner the defendant claimed the land to be his, and the adjudication of the commissioners affects only the rights of the parties contesting. The *seventh*exception is* for that the commissioners, instead of reporting that they had *processioned*the line in dispute, reported that they had *possessioned the*same. We have no hesitation in overruling this exception. The context puts the meaning beyond all doubt. That shews that, in obedience to the order of the court, they proceeded with the processioner to run the line from the post-oak “South eighty-eight'degrees West seventy-eight chains and forty-two links to the Yadkin river bank to a white oak, and did establish the line in dispute between the said parties as above.” This *is*processioning, and the term, to which objection has been taken, may be re* jected as superfluous.

The remaining exceptions, which need not be separately considered, present the material enquiry, whether the pro? *28ceedings set forth with sufficient certainty the matter in dis-Pute ^etween ^ie contending parties and the finding of the commissioners thereon, so as to warrant the court in order-jng ¡^e same to be recorded, and adjudging costs against the party failing in the contest. And first with respect to the subject in dispute; are the respective claims and allegations of the parties so stated, that it may plainly appear upon what matter they are at issue ? We are of opinion that, although this is not done in the most approved form, it nevertheless appears with reasonable certainty. The processioner reports that he commenced to run the land claimed by the-plaintiff at a hickory stump, on the east bank of the river, and ran out the first line therefrom North eighty-five degrees East (within five degrees of a due east course) forty chains twenty-one links to a black oak, Bonner’s corner ; that he then run thence a second line, North two and an half dc* grees West (that is, very nearly north) sixty-five chains eighty five links to a post-oak, and thus far it appears that there was no dispute. He further states, that he was then proceeding to run the third line, that is to say, from the post-oak, South eighty-eight degrees "West seventy-eight chains to a white-oak on the bank of the river — and he must b.e understood as being about to run this as the line claimed by Miller — and that he was forbidden so to do by the defendant Heart, who “ contended” that the land was his, that *it*runs from the post-oak, South eighty seven and a half de^ groes West fifteen .chains, thence South. Now upon this, we think it manifestly appears, that Miller-claimed that the third line of his tract ran from the post-oak South eighty-eight degrees West seventy-eight chains to a white-oak on bank of the river, North of the hickory stump his beginning corner on the river, and that Heart insisted that it ran South *S7i*degrees West fifteen chains only, and thence with-regard to the river, turned off to the South' — and that the between the line as claimed by Miller and the line, as asserted it ought to run, was his, Heart’s land. These then the respective allegations of the parties as to a dividing line between them, and the matter in issue was, *29which oí these two alleged lines was the true one. The proeessioner was forbid to run the line as claimed by the plaintiff, because, by so doing, the defendant alleged that the proeessioner would go upon *his*land, for that it (meaning *the line)*ought to run a different course and distance, viz. the course and distance insisted on by the defendant. As technical forms are not required, the report of the processiorter we hold to be sufficiently certain. There is less difficulty with respect to the report of the commissioners. The only objection to it, except the hypercritical one before noticed founded on the substitution of the word “possession” for “procession,” is, that they make the distance on the line from the post-oak to the white-oak, claimed by the plaintiff, forty-two links of a chain greater than the distance which the plaintiff claimed to run, in order to reach that white-oak. This affects not, in the slightest degree, the controversy between the parties. The commissioners have established the line as claimed by the plaintiff, for they establish the same *termini*and the same course to be the *termini*and course thereof, and whether the distance by actual measurement does or does not exceed that claimed or called for, forty-twp links is wholly immaterial.

Upon the whole matter, this court is of opinion, that there was error in setting aside the report of the the commissioners, and directs this to be so certified to .the Superior Court, The defendant must pay the costs of the appeal.

Per Curiam, Ordered accordingly,