Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1854-11-23

ii Is he een-rsl disecivn q lhefiyer aeeena
=, - ,,Snk Tsrfe "a. then "a nectskiy % su-
$500 ~ otker descriptisa aaA tbs cal! 70 tun
down he fFrr c5nsi aa3 force 70 the ciet cars
10 run % the mcsih 81 certain coarses and eas-
ssnees. eossEtrrsnr Il Is sinp1y-tesctirtiye. The
tern, then II this view q j. wqllt b. s1pesefcsa.
tory aad aseess. H. reason3hie te concince ta1t
Ia al slowing ibis Term II wss iD;Fn.e1 70 indicate
.,-,. sz.rfae nrrnrse Il urtFss hhzt Purpose Vas
- Az = the fon13ary II ghe psaknt Is J. wish lat
,f,~anIaE ara ,r4si b reiscted s,s snrb ns1ge.-
But ID he constr aesiese1 wslsa irss
iaust - fnsefprsf them = 70 zse fsui't s-ee 80
-. ~, ~ esrfexsSea dow ibe III er II amhza
ssas an1 NJ ssl bc infesnFrtei viii g AZ
81 il stood aioee, - & her dese p'iYe of
thar eonssrnetish crgh q prevail = hifafSih Ette
i, eject rather taan tb4i uaikA v4n.l uiA<e
sesseirss or & ihe lfzsf q nfQess us. - ernef-
ii view u he suhlsci ~gad se ~ IS Gene =,
that In he abAenee Of a. ast nc iafia ss9ai9
be considered Ii the conaecslan in y hfl t1e 3aa
Il ID this patent as lecasiyes aa4 nss tnefsly C.
scsipiise III Us eopsiasf tae lfaiioa sfien WIZ
releFe1ce 10 authority: ~
We hiFe 40 adjudication q iPe CoaFis q ls- |
6 inia involying precisely he question toE under
rersiaer.tion. bat similar no4 idenicai, qaes.
fscns have frequently arisen anil sen adI aaiea'ea
~ The Courts Of our sister Safes Aiief fss'ev
i1v numerous eases Involving this question, sns
Supreme coau q New Ypfk sais; t, rers -.
deney In the cases have cited, % turn every coeus
u5on expressions which az The bonadaFy ne1s sae
river. ID favor Of contact witAtse Nfiee. A.s
words which Ia hose cases anp qiieis ~
Inc nost. freaaent difIicultes aye where the VI
mini Of The river line san1sn spask some aus
lance iron the stream and The line i pfesr ned %
ran between thcm, along the rivff p y tee Ff9-
La NJ
spective ofGhe immediate margin, OF ~ following,
n distance from the margin, thu meat3eTs Of the
stream where the words reqnire that. Bot all suth
2 language has beea held 70 G. us boundary upon
the river These cases show what II II very diff
: aaIf fart mi NJ 3 Fr4fn
never mean TO Leave a narrow slip bflweea the
isn4 and river, merely because fpnr stake or Tree
or n,a The stakes or trees ofihe line stand a.
slight distance from the river- TIE expression Of
an intent 70 run II line along the sfreaFn reaches
distinct natural menument, Which oyereomes me
s others They are rather INTENDED 10 Indicates o.
pofnt down to the water lIne.g Sary 81 Caad. 20
tgeHd f56 If the Supreme C3ptof New YORK
nave here stated correctly the result Of The adjudi
cation on questions Of this kind the present cues
tIon Is closed by authority so Tar as the decisions
OF foreign tribunals can bind this court earelal
examination OF all the cases cited, sasies me that
they fully sustain me positions taken by The Court
of New York and have cited The a5ofe passage
atIaFge because il expressed I'M language al once
lucid and terse, the result Of the caves reviewed.
may remark, too, that thisgety passage j. qaoled
with appreciation by Judge Allen President Of the
Courl Of Appeals Of Virginia, 10 delivering the
opinion of the court 10 the late and yet unpuoiish
ed Case Of Ffeaes rs BaakAsaa. ] have 20 t4fne e
discuss at largehe cases referred 10 BY the Supreme
- Court OF New lafk and'fn Isl eQnltl ~ 9SFit Mta
brief reference to one Of them Which presents me
very question involved befe. The ease OF BrEee
o. Taylor, 2, J. J. Mlcst4fis RIP. lbl, Is the case
referred TO- The last call u the patent was ior
courses and distances from stake onthe oaioFIy-
or 10 the beginning, hfsh was also en- the Onip--
The lines called for without any Intermediate cor
Iers were in the general direction o. the iFert DIT
tleys teds No cal "a dsga tif riner. 4 he land
was described In the patent as lying op me ONO
fiver The court said the river was The boundary.
and their reasons for this eoneu al thas sue
eInctly stated 1.-THE stake called fer Il the riy
ef the intermediate courses are in the general al-
Feetion of the river; no corners are CALLED Tor me
courses aud distances are n5t accurate but sucn as
would be called for when intending that the river
should BE- Inc Boundary he surveyor would not be
particular in asceraining by his compass the e1.
aet course nor with his chain The precise distance
This ease goes much farther than wears required
"a %. % establish The Shenandoah as the Boundary
OF The Harper patent There, the court inferred
that the river was intended TO eensliiuteh bonn
dary from the factthe two ter1iHl Of The lniermedi-
ate lines the river, and that the inlefnedl-
ats lines without any established corners, were 10
tbe general direction Of Therivfr. Now looking al
: the Harper patent Ia connection with the plat 81
Y survey we hnd thattwu tefnliaTof The lines are on
the Shenandoah; that4he Intermediate courses are
Al the general direction OF the river: thai no cor
ner l. called for that the and distances are
= not accurate &c 50 far the cases are IDENTICAL
The i've cases ASsEG he li{ti hra n
stated, by the court, wilhelm The case at bar the
cat 10 run down the river Is found Ia express terms
Mr. Stuart's objection that i the parties had iht,ni-
81 70 run by the river, intermediate lihes 81 ba,
one ihIefmediate line, would have heeh called for
4 answered by the above case. Il is proper whore
river is designcdto be the boundary line thatlhs
snrveyor'should run as many intermediate lines-as
the natural eHrvaiures OF the stream VIII render
necessary to make the magnetic line correspond
with the general course of tie river. These lines
must be run by the surveyor In order to compute
the area ofthefand surveyed and the fact thatsaeh
ia. = T.. Il. I..l 4.
The plat andsuryey, constitutes no ground for the
conclusion, that the parties intended 10 bound the
land by the magnetic or other right lines rather
than by The river Indeed Mr.. Niche, in his COM
menlary on the case last cited drew The very oppo-
site conclusion tiom the number u these magnetic
lines conforming 10 their general direction to the
course Of the river II would have been quite as
logical 10 deducr the coneaS4on Ia the case al Tar,
that the river was designed as the boundary, from
the fact that the intermediate lines here called for
no ceEner and were Ia the general direction Of the
riFtr. This case them Is APT and close author.
S9iy IN support Of the position N the defendants
counsel that the river, aud net The straight lines
ts the true boundary of the Harper patent The
ease, indeed Is ofno binding authority upon The
court, butts persuasive merely Is tie case then,
cousisIentwiih reason andihe principles Of Law -
The fundamental principle we hate been consider
ing that where there is conflict orfepugnance be.
tween magnetic Or imaginary fiaes aud patural Or
artificial monuments, the iurmeT must yield, Is one
of the wisest In the law. Its a principle Of re.
i pose. Il gives certainty aud tc6aiteness TO the
boundaries Ut co-tetmnous tenants II RiyesStabi.
ity and hImness 10 land Il les The compass 4 so
ascertain q guide, that no Two surveyors perhaps
ever perfectly agreed IN running tnsyey By mag
hetie lines. tits the natural or arthcial mohuBeDt
alone, which gives hkednees nf certainty 10 bound.
dairy. In the case al bar. the terms employed IN
The patent cannot oiherwise Be SATISFIED, than BY
befdlne thai The Shenandoah Is The hanndary
Of The Harper pasrht kefn The beginning sufnet 10
s4the mouth pr Ihat9fiYef aud sustained ~ con.
eelve thai construction ID he, heth BIZ reasen ADD
authority, ! hare no hesitation Ii Adopting e,
Tbs next eailet The patent Il lgf the extend.
tBE from The point The f9iomaHi aeflslne9Afse
ahd diaiaAee 10 chestnut near the river The Pc
else language III The palehtia, HtkfHfe uR The 10.
tomae river N. ~ w, wahnndled poles III ehesss
Ahl Tree standing near pesomae, opposite II 4 sm an
island There Il much ropaletla The testimony
a. % The precise locality Of The chestnut called flr
~ the terminus II this line he evidence on lhs
paft uf lhs pfanf tenfins 10 sSaw lhai Il tlo0d
ground now covered BY TIE Y, 5 Canal designed |
II the plat ofsnryey as I'D IS lia on The part
the defendant tending TO locate Il At q. point on
The embankmenl of the Baltimore and Ohio Rall- |
road. The latter point Is opposite 70 a small Is
land In the Potomac, the tormer Is near a small /
promontoFy lqiting ints tie river, AMI evidence
was offered BY the Plaintiffs 70 show thatihis prom
ontory was originally an island and 1hal the Rail-
road Company made j. part Of the main land ty /
nlling up the Intermediate space with earth. As
sumo ether hypothesis and the call Tor monu- i
snent near The Potomac AMI opposite 10 small Is
land Is satisfied The point claimed By The plain
tifs Is some tset more remote tfo1i The river than
that insisted BY the defendants anA Il straight
line drawn fom the point tothe confluence Of The
two rivers 70 the chestnut, Is The lrne BOUNDARY