The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-24

no case had been agreed and no case
set by the court and no error APP
pearing on the face of the record,
decision of the court below was
affirmed.
j. L.. Whitaker ct ais VS.. Russell
Jenkins. Will case. Beouest was to
three brothers, they to support their
mother. Two of the brothers died
and the mother lived for twenty years.
Action by heirs of deceased brothers
to be tenants in common. Both de-
ceased died intestate and without
children. Other brother claimed
seigen on twenty years possession.
claiming that deceased brothers had
left. the land, owing to a disinclina-
ton to contribute to the support of
the mother. Held, that he could
properly show title under the statute
of adverse possession.
Cheek VS.. Walker. Will case. Be-
quest was as follows: IF T. E. dies
unmarried or leaving no children,
wish two-thirds of his property to go
to my brothers and sisters and one
third to his mother" T. T.. married
and had ? child. both of whom died.
Held, that the words meant in case
he died before having been married,
not that he had to die married and
leaving issue for the estate to arise.
Rowe VS.. Lumber Company. What
are boundaries of land is a question
of law; where they are, one of fact
In deed calling for "Catskin Creek, .
if the creek had been we'll defined it
would have meant to the center of
the stream. Where the creek was a
series of swamps, the determination
of the boundaries was a matter for
the jury to fix after testimony.
Janney VS.. Blackwell. The statute
as to grants, where neither party
holding grants is in possession of the
land, does not affect the old rule Civ
ing the better title to the party hav-
ing the priority of grant
Index of Argument and Opinion.
Casese were argued as follows:
Ammons VS.. Ry Co., Franklin &
Fisher for plaintiff; Moore & Rollins
and Andrews for defendant
Curtis VS.. Railway Company, Frank
lin for plaintiff; Moore & Rollins and
Andrews for defendant
Nicholson VS.. Railway Company,
Cowan for plaintiff; Shuford, Cash
Moore and Shepherd for defendant
Leach VS.. Western Union Telegraph
Company billiard & Bell for plaintiff;
Whitson & Keith and F. H. Busbee &
Son for defendant
Wilson VS.. Bryson, Axley, Moore and
Shepherd for plaintiff; Ray for defend
ant.
Ledford VS.. Emmerson, Axley, Nor
veil and BuSbee & Busbee for plain
tiff; billiard & Bell for defendant
Rountree VS.. Loftin, Rouse and Car
& Rountree for plaintiff; Pollock for
defendant.
State VS. L. N Jones, Attorney Cen
eral and H. H. McLendon for State;
Caudle and Bennett and Lockhart for
defendant.
State vs. Meachum, Attorney Gen
eral for State; MeLendon for defend
ant.
Arey VS.. Commissioners, woodscn
and Craige for plaintiff; Linn for de-
PENDANT
T~opst vs.. Southern Railway. Bar
ringer for plaintiff: King &>Eimball
for defendant.
Opinions handed down as follows:
Rowe VS.. Lumber Company: no err
ror
State VS.. McGinnis, from Wake; no
errcr
Commissioners VS.. Stafford, from
Chatham: affirmed.
State VS.. GateWood, from Person, no
error.
State VS.. Clayton. from Person, no
error
State VS.. White, from Rowan, no err
ror.
Cheek VS.. Walker, from Durham, af-
firmed.
Janney VS.. Blackwell from Cald-
well, affirmed.
HUT VS.. Lumber Company. from
Burke affirmed.
State VS.. Shines, from Madison, no
error
State VS. Peter Smith, from Madi-
son, no error
Whitaker VS.. Jenkins. from Bum
combe, no error.
In re Merrick, Campbell's appeal.
from, Buncombe, affirmed.
In re Merrick, Jones, appeal, af-
firmed.
Kerr & Martin VS.. Girdwood, from
Buncombe, affirmed.
Cressler VS.. Asheville, from Bum
combe affirmed.
Vance VS.. Railway Company, from
Buncombe, no error.
Penland VS.. Ingle. from Buncombe,
two cases, both decided in favor of de-
PENDANT.
Green VS.. Green, from Jackson, dis
missed under Rule II.
Ctate VS.. Cook from Madison, per
curiam, no error.
State VS.. Sarah J. Lythe, from Bun
combe, per curtain, no error
Switzerland VS.. School Committee
from Wayne, per curiam, affirmed.
Curtis VS. Electric Company, from
Buncombe, per curiam affirmed.
Shytle VS.. Railway Company, from
Runcombe, per curiam, affirmed.
State VS.. Lee, from Guilford, per
curtain, no error.
PERSONALS.
Mr.. j. B. Pennington, of Tarboro,