History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brooks v. . Woodruff
116 S.E. 724
N.C.
1923
Check Treatment

This was a proceeding of protest under the entry laws, C.S. 7557; and, from a judgment in favor of protestant, the enterer, or claimant, appealed. Brooks made entry to certain lands, under C.S. 7554, alleging the same to be vacant or unappropriated. Woodruff filed his protest, under C.S. 7557, claiming title to the land covered by the entry under a prior grant from the State. On the trial the rights of the parties were made to depend upon the true location of the lines and boundaries of Woodruff's grant. The case was heard on an agreed statement of facts, and his Honor, by consent, acting as judge and jury, found that Woodruff's grant called for the same land as that covered by the entry. This was a mooted question of fact, and we see no reason for disturbing his Honor's finding in favor of protestant and against the claimant, as it is supported by the evidence.

"What are the termini or boundaries of a grant or deed is a matter of law; where those boundaries or termini are is a matter of fact. It is the province of the court to declare the first, that of the jury to ascertain the second." Henderson, J., in Tatem v. Paine, 11 N.C. 71. Here the court, by consent, taking the place of the jury, has found the facts against the claimant, and such finding is supported by competent evidence. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed. Lumber Co. v. Bernhardt,162 N.C. 460.

Affirmed. *Page 304 Cited: Geddie v. Williams, 189 N.C. 337; Tinsley v. Winston-Salem,192 N.C. 597; Edwards v. Benbow, 227 N.C. 467; Carrow v. Davis,247 N.C. 742.

Case Details

Case Name: Brooks v. . Woodruff
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Apr 11, 1923
Citation: 116 S.E. 724
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.