The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-02-09
THE DECISION IN
W00lF0LK-GRAvES CASE

The following are extracts from
the decision rendered in the cause
OF Voolfolk ct ais vs.. Graves ct ais
by the Virginia Court OF Appeals
Jan ~. 1911.
The appellants. Lucien Comfort
and Samuel Voolfolk, claimed un-
der a survey made by John NJ. Hol-
laday. county surveyor. fifteen U5
acres of land owned by Ella NJ
Graves and Daisy f. Griggs. The
question Of title to the 10 acres OF
land was adjudicated inl this suit
before Judge John f.. Mason, judge
Of the Circuit Court OF Spotsylyania
county. Va, by whose decision the
title to this property was decreed
TO be In Ella NJ Graves and Daisy
Il. Griggs The appellants. Comfort
ana Voolfolk. through their counsel
Gordon 4 Gordon. OF Louisa, and
b. Powell. Of Spotsylvania. took
An appeal TO the Supreme Court OF
Virginia. The grounds OF theiI
app, being as follows.
Fins That appelee's bill failed
. SHOW any lille 10 the land in
question in appeless
Second That n they claimed
through adverse possession. 10 facts
arc sa.cd show ing what dominion
hcy hal OYER the land to-wit. the
'i;-ecn acres.
Thir That the bill failed "a
snow AR prima iacie case In sup
port Of tn appeleos' title
Fourth that appelees should
have not osfy shown a prima facie
i,le 20 the land. bat should have
set ont the facts relied on to- show
hat Without equitable Interference
hey .Jlld suffer irreparable injury
or thlf 'hcir remedy at law was
1oi adI..v-e and complete. and
hat as the bil OF appelees does not
measure up to this requirement the
demurrer thereto should have been
sustained.
The appellants. Comfort and WOOL
folk. relied in the main upon q
survey made by County Surveyor
John " Holiday. To sustain their
contention to the land in question.
The language Of the court in ITS
opinion relating to this survey is
as follows:
with respect to the eXparte'
Holidays survey. II is only neces-
sary TO say that when considered In
come ion with his own deposition
In this case. and with the facts
proven. il is mainly il not al
oecthor, piece OF guess work.thc
-esul, Of which is In conflict with
physical facts appearing on the
gro nd and the facts proven in the
,ecords beyond question. which was
iollulss the view taken OF 1t by
ne Circuit Court, surveyor Holla-
ia, did not follow The courses Civ
n ia the Old deeds forming part
II tine chain OF lille to the land OF
he appellants. formerly the Peake
isnl. nor did he regard he marked
.9r. rrs IN the line dividing the
and Of appellants and that OF the
lpp llecs shown upon the plat MADE
oy Bis zoe when both appellants were
present and one OF them pointed out
hes, corners. Never before the
Holiday survey did appellants CLAIM
he right to 90 beyond that line On
the contrary they knew OF and ac-
uuiesced in the location OF the
inc between them and appellants by
TWO surveys. one OF them made by
J. n. Biscoe. competent surveyor
The court further commenting up
on the evidence OF the appellants
states
we have not undertaken 10 re
view az length the mass of evidence
in the case, as much OF
il is of no value and when directed
10 sustain in the contention OF APPEL
.an.s II is either discredited or sue
oessfully contradicted by the proof
IS 10 the facts We have stated
The court in concluding its opin-
on in this case states:
The defendants set up their own
lille in their answer and made a
Ruthless effort to support 1t by evil
Ience. On behalf OF the PLAINTIFFS
every allegation of their bill Is sus-
aimed by the proof they adduced.
ANY other decree than that which
was entered would have fallen short
Of the complete relief to which
plaintiffs under the facts and cir
alleged in their bill and
in the evidence we're entitled. Upon
the whole case we are of the opin-
ion that there is no error In the de
cree complained OF. therefore 1t Is