History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sandifer v. . Foster
2 N.C. 237
Sup. Ct. N.C.
1795
Check Treatment

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)

Case Details

Case Name: Sandifer v. . Foster
Court Name: Superior Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Oct 5, 1795
Citation: 2 N.C. 237
Court Abbreviation: Sup. Ct. 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.