Court Opinion

ID: 3655306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:08:39.072441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:32.986696
License: Public Domain

The river in this case must be considered as the boundary of Gee's patent. It has always been thus uniformly decided in our courts.
The jury so found, and there was judgment accordingly.
Cited: Hartsfield v. Westbrook, post, 258; Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.C. 85;Hurley v. Morgan, 18 N.C. 430; Slade v. Neal, 19 N.C. 62; Shultz v.Young, 25 N.C. 387; McPhaul v. Gilchrist, 29 N.C. 173; Literary Boardv. Clark, 31 N.C. 61; Baxter v. Wilson, 95 N.C. 143; Brown v. House,118 N.C. 878; Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 820; Rowe v. Lumber Co.,133 N.C. 437; Whitaker v. Cover, 140 N.C. 284; Boyden v. Hagaman,169 N.C. 202; Power Co. v. Savage, 170 N.C. 629. *Page 185 
(238)