Case Name: Standen v. Bains
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1795-10
Citations: 1 Hayw. 273
Docket Number: 
Parties: Standen v. Bains.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Standen v. Bains.
General reputation is admissible as evidence in cases of boundary.— Marked lines and corners may be established as the true one, although variant from the courses and distances mentioned in the deed.
Trespass, qnare clausum fregit. Not guilty, liberum tenementum, &c. pleaded. The Plaintiff claimed under Srkill, who patented a tract of land in the year ¡740, extending, as he alleged, to a line distinguished in the plat, by the name of the doited line. The courses and distances mentioned in the patent extended not. so far; but only to a line distinguished in the" piar by the wtme of the black line. The Defendant entered this intermediate tract in the year 1784, and took possession — whereupon, the Plaintiff brought his action. The court permitted evidence to be given, that the dotted line, which was a marked one, bad for a loug time since the year 1740 been reputed the line of Jlr kill’s tract — the patent called for a gum standing iri Robert’s line; this gum was found at the termination of the dotted line. It next called for two lines of Roberts’ tract, the dotted line was upon these two lines. It next called for Hoskin’s corner : the dotted line went, to that corner, and there was nothing to prove the black line to be the true one, but course and distance. There was no witness who could prove positively, that the doited line was the line of Arkill’s tract. •

Opinion:
Per curiam,
the mistake of a surveyor in describing or laying down the boundaries of the land patented, should not prejudice the patentee, if the jury are satisfied that the marked line was the true one, although the distances thereof will not correspond with the. distances in the patent — therefore in the present case, the jury may consider whether there is suiiicient evidence to satisfy them, that this dotted line was (he real boundary, though not truly described in the patent j and if they think, so, then to find for the Plaintiff. The eourt then recapitulated the circumstances above mentioned, as affording a proof of this being the. true line, rather than the other, and the jury under their direction found for the Plaintiff.
Note. — Vide note to Bradford v. Hill, ante 22.