Case Name: Swaine vs. Bell and Bellune
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1801-05
Citations: 2 Hayw. 139
Docket Number: 
Parties: Swaine vs. Bell and Bellune.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 139–139

Head Matter:
Swaine vs. Bell and Bellune.
Tj'JECTMENT. The boundaries of the patent under which •*-* the defendant claimed, were, beginning at the mouth o>; Cape-Fear, thence along the sea coast t© Lockwood’s Folly Inlet, then up a creek within the inlet along the western branch of said creek to the head thereof, thence a north-east course ts> Elizabeth river, thence down the said river to the beginning:. It was contended that the other creek or eastern branch was the boundary to the head thereof. North 45 east, would not, strike Elizabeth river, though a course to the north of east would.

Opinion:
laylor, Judge.
A natural boundary is always adhered to when called for. It cannot be altered as artificial boundaries may, by the marking of new lines, defacing marks or the decay of trees ¡ — -.therefore the western branch is to be taken to be the boundary. As to the next course it, matters not that a northeast course was called for ; had it been a western course, which, would have gone directly from Elizabeth river, still we must have proceeded from the head of the creek to Elizabeth river, that being a natural boundary, and the course is not to be regarded. As to the possession, it makes no title for the plaintiff or defendant, unless it has been under a colour of title.