Case Name: BETTY JANE TWEED and Husband, CARE TWEED, v. CHARLES TAYLOR, LAWRENCE L. TAYLOR and Wife, DORIS TAYLOR
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1965-10-20
Citations: 265 N.C. 491
Docket Number: 
Parties: BETTY JANE TWEED and Husband, CARE TWEED, v. CHARLES TAYLOR, LAWRENCE L. TAYLOR and Wife, DORIS TAYLOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
BETTY JANE TWEED and Husband, CARE TWEED, v. CHARLES TAYLOR, LAWRENCE L. TAYLOR and Wife, DORIS TAYLOR.
(Filed 20 October, 1965.)
Appeal by defendants from McLean, J., March-April, 1965, Regular Civil Session of Madison.
This is a suit to restrain, and to recover damages for alleged trespasses by defendants on land of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants have entered upon their land located in No. 3 Township, Madison County, built a stone wall thereon and begun construction of a concrete-block building which is partially on their land, and the wall and foundation of the building are situate in Cody (or Ray) Branch so as to divert the waters of the branch onto land not theretofore in the bed of the stream. Defendants deny all material allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to an order of the court a survey was made and maps drawn showing the contentions of the parties. It was stipulated that plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining lands, the location of a boundary line is in dispute, and the descriptions of the disputed boundary in the deeds of the respective parties are identical. The parties agreed upon the issues to be submitted to the jury.
The jury answered the issues in substance as follows: (1) The true boundary line is “A to B” (plaintiffs’ contention as shown on the court map). (2) Defendants diverted the waters of Cody Branch as alleged. (3) Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $100 damages. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict and injunctive relief was granted.
Mashbum & Huff for 'plaintiffs.
A. E. Leake for defendants.

Opinion:
Per CuRIam.
The issues, agreed to by the parties and submitted to the jury, are sufficient to dispose of all material controversies arising on the pleadings and to support a final judgment. We find no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence. The evidence amply supports the verdict. The issues were submitted to the jury upon instructions free of prejudicial error.
No error.