Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-01
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF the Supreme Court Of the state
OF Tennessee, mt Nashville, December
Term. 1895.
WoodfoIk vs.. CsruEsll.

WC0ufOlk vs. GoruEeli.
This is an action Of trespass quare elGvr1s rtgit
The question presented for determination is
mainly enc Of boundary.
The plsintiff claims under conveyance from the
heirs Of Hardy Murfree The proof shows that on
the 18th OF October, l79l, one Harvey, who was
the grantee Of tract Of 200 acres from the State
Of North Carolina, conveyed 10 II. Murfras 14fO
acres, lying in the southwest Of said grant
conveyance calls to begin at large sugar tree the
southwest corner of the Harvey grant: thence
along the line Of said grant, north 1872 poles thence
east 29l poles, thence south 1872 poles, TO Hsrneys
line, thence west with his line 29l poles 10 the be-
ginning. On the lOih Of October, 1905, H. Muir
free, by a memorandum in writing, contracted to
sell said land to the plaintiff, Voolfolk and after
the death Of said Murfree, to wit: en- the 2Sd Of
October, 1928. his heirs made conveyance in pur~
suanoe Of said contract made BY their ancestor.
This conveyance pursues, precisely the calls OF the
deed frcm Harvey to Murfree, above set forth, no
object or land marks being called Tor, except the
large sugar tree, the beginning corner which Is as
eribed as the corner of Harvey $ grant
The proof shows that in 1919, Hardy Murfree
and the plaintiff procured a survey TO be made OF
the 144O acres above de cfibed. This survey was
made it seems, at their owu suggestion vii hout
the knowledge or concurrence Of the adIU ming
ers They commenced at Whist was Assumed by
them TO be- the sugar Tree called for IS the south
western c0raer the Harvey gran, and run and
marked the sevtr4l lines sc oTdug TO the course and
distances called fer ia the deeds from la ney TO MuF
free and from the heirs Of the latter 10 the plain
tiff And the plaintiff insists tbatby this survey, aad
marking Of the line Jh9 Oca lou and boundaries Of
sad and were defUi ely fixed as agaiGs all persons.
This is d. MED the part Of the defendant, who al
Ieges that said survey entire departure from
TIE true culs Il The de frlm HAr ey to Mu.iree,
and fr,u The heirs Ct the latter 10 plaintiff The
defendant Insists that the sugar tree, The south west
corner of the Harvey grant, and the beginning
/ FER Of his conveyance TO Murfree, stood perhaps
100 poles west Of the sugar tree ii which the plain
/ tif's survey was commenced
i If ire sugar Tree claimed By the def, nlsni, be
the true ginning Ufthe 144O tract then, 10
the lines acc )rding 10 corners and distances from
that point, the land upon which the alleged tres
pass was committed is not covered by the plaintiffs
conveyance but it is otherwise, if the sugar tree
claimed BY the plaintiff is to be regarded as the
! corner.
The first question, then, is simple question of
fact which is the southwest corner CT the Harvey
grant The jury established the corner as claimed
bv the defendant, and all we now say uPoa this
point is that notwithstanding the conflicting and
contradictory character Of the proof, We think the
decided preponderanes is in support Of the verdict.
The next question is whether the instruction 10 the
Jury was correct. The court in effect charged that
The plaintiff was entitled to the land covered BY his
doai from Murfree's heirs. But that Tor an aileg
al ,rasnoss on land outside Of the proper boundary
! of the land though within the boundary fixed BY
the survev made In 1909, the plaintiff could not
cover This instruction, with reference 70 thr facts
Of this particular case, we think was correct.
L will be borne in mind, as before remarked,
that the calls Of the deed to the plaintiff ideni
cal with the calls Of the conveyance from the gran
lee 10 Hardy Murfree in 1891. In both deeds the
l44O acre tract is bounded the south and west by
the lines Of the original grant to Harvey, and BY
these lines the location Of the land must be fixed,
for il viii be observed the sOla ed question for our
determiBat upon this record is the proper loca-
ton and boundary Of said tract
IT, in truth the southwestern corner Of The grant,
which was made the beginning Of the 1440 acres,
was an established corner, was it not competent 10
the plaintiff or his vendor, By ErParis survey in
1909 to depart from that corner and the line called
for ia the deed running thence with the line Of the
grant 792 poes and TO establish 9 new oornsr and
line 100 poles east Of the true corner and western