Court Opinion

ID: 7385449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 00:16:25.126716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:18.299215
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
There was much conflicting evidence in this case, relative to where the old line was, of which it was the province of the Jury to judge. The Court instructed the Jury that iiie Plaintiff’s boundary extended to Thomas Willborn’s line wherever that was, notwithstanding that the corner D. and the line B. D. were marked as his corner and line.
This is in conformity with the case of Blount v. Benbury — (2 Hayw. 354) and many other cases that have* Arisen. A new trial is refused.