Court Opinion

ID: 9807979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:23:03.612584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:24.095360
License: Public Domain

Smith, C. J.,
Dissenting. During the progress of the inquiry before the referee, the defendant introduced witnesses to prove declarations of living persons as to the place known as the head of Speller’s creek, which testimony was taken down, and the plaintiffs’ exception thereto noted. In his. report the referee states that the evidence fails to establish the locality of the head of the creek, and he accordingly finds the true 'line of the Jordan grant, under which the plaintiffs claim, to run from the admitted starting point on the river, according to course and distance, over and beyond *192the creek. This running includes the land in dispute in the grant.
On the hearing of the case before the Judge upon the defendants’ exceptions, none being filed by .the plaintiffs, it does not appear .that any question was made as to the competency of the evidence, or that it was brought to the notice of'the Court, or any ruling asked or made upon it. Nor can we see that: it was acted on either by the referee or the Court. It can not, therefore, be made here, as our jurisdic- . tion is limited to the correction of errors in the Court below, and these should be pointed out by exceptions. If, however, the objection had .been pressed, I am not prepared to say it should be sustained. It was certainly proper to receive evidence of the locality of the head of the creek, as of the creek itself. In Waters v. Simmons, 7 Jones 541, one of the calls of the deed was, “ thence north, 10 east, 485 poles to the head of Speller’s creek,” and a witness was .allowed to testify, as a matter of personal knowledge, where •the head of the creek was. The Court in the opinion say: “ If a river, creek, marsh, swash, swamp', savanna, mountain cove or ridge be called for in a deed or grant, it can not be identified by the instrument itself, but its location must in the very nature of things be pointed out by parol proof, that is, by'witnesses who profess to know and to be .able to state where it is,” and that “ the difficulty of the proof can be no reason why the testimony should be rejected as incompetent.”
It is true that declarations from persons who are living are not admissible to prove private boundary lines, and it is ■only when they are dead that in this State, from necessity, the rule excluding hearsay has been so far relaxed as to admit them; but the doctrine is confined to declarations which relate to the boundaries of land, and does not extend to the names by which natural objects are designated and known. The names of mountains, creeks, swamps, and oth*193er physical objects upon the earth’s surface are acquired by reputation, and consequently may be proved by reputation. This is the most usual method of proof. The evidence •simply fits the name of the thing named, and can not be excluded, because by reason of its being called for in a deed it may ascertain and fix a boundary of land. Dobson v. Finley, 8 Jones 495.
Among other exceptions of the defendants is one to the ■effect that the referee did not find, and upon the evidence ought to have found, the true locality of the head of the creek to be at the fork marked D. G., in the plat, and this ■exception is sustained by the Court. The Court therefore .finds as a fact that there was a place known as the head of ►Speller’s creek, and that it was at the point claimed by the ■defendants. This is established upon the weight of the evidence, and in this Court must be considered as conclusively settled. The Judge may review the report of the .referee, and set aside, modify, or confirm the same, in whole, «or in part. C. C. P., § 247; and his action determines the facts when this Court is called on to review his deductions of law. Green v. Castlebury, 70 N. C., 20.
If the line is then run from the river to the head of the creek, the land upon which the alleged trespasses were committed is excluded from the Jordan grant. We have then a conceded starting point on the river, and a definitely ascertained natural object, at or near which, by the calls of •the grant, the lines must run and terminate ; and we have the divergent and longer line by course and distance, and the question is,- — which must control. I think this question has been settled by repeated adjudications, and in case of .such conflict the call of natural objects must prevail. Cherry v. Slade, 3 Murp. 82; Tatem v. Paine, 4 Hawks 64; Brooks v. Britt, 4 Dev. 481; Patton v. Alexander, 7 Jones 603; Nash v. R. R. Co., 67 N. C. 413, Nor can a plat or mathematical diagram attached to the grant whereon no *194natural objects are laid down, control the calls of the deed. Literary Board v. Clark, 9 Ire. 58. I am therefore of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
Error.
Per Curiaji. Judgment reversed-