
    J. A. AUSTIN v. J. A. McCOLLUM.
    (Filed 22 April, 1914.)
    Processioning — Trials — Issues of Fact — Judgment—Direction , to Surveyor.
    In this proceeding lor processioning lands the questions involved are issues of fact found by the jury under correct instruction of the court as to the law thereon; and the judgment rendered according to the verdict, and directing the surveyor to run and mark the line thus ascertained, is held no error.
    Appeal by defendant from Adams, J., at August Term, 1913, of’ UNION.
    This is a'processioning proceeding. Upon tbe finding of tbe jury in response to tbe issue submitted tbe court rendered judgment as follows :
    Tbis cause coining on to be beard and being beard before tbe undersigned judge and a jury at tbe August Term, 1913, of Union Superior Court,'and tbe jury baving found tbat tbe true dividing lines between land of plaintiff and tbe lands of defendants are: first, from tbe stone at “2” on tbe map, plaintiff’s second corner, N. 88.50 W. 10.60 chains to a large wbite-oak stump marked “Z” on tbe map; and, second, from tbe said large wbite-oak stump marked “Z” on tbe map S. 23 E. 23.68 chains to a stake driven down by IT. M. Lilly, surveyor, near a pine-stump bole, said stake being driven down at the Tomberlin line, and indicated by tbe point “10”. on tbe map :
    It is adjudged tbat tbe said lines as above described are tbe true dividing lines between tbe land of plaintiff and tbe lands of tbe defendants, and it is ordered tbat II. M. Lilly, surveyor, run and mark said lines, setting up permanent monuments of ’ boundary at tbe corners.
    And it is ordered and adjudged tbat tbe plaintiff recover of tbe defendants bis costs in tbis action to be taxed by tbe clerk of tbe court. W. J. Adams,
    
      Judge Presiding.
    
    Tbe defendant appealed.
    
      
      Adams, Armfield & Adams, Stack & Parlcer for plaintiff.
    
    
      Manning & Kitchin, Redwine & Sikes for defendant.
    
   Pee CtfeiaM.

We have carefully considered the eighteen assignments of error set out in the record in this case, and are of opinion that they are without merit. The controversy between the parties is practically one of fact as to the location of certain division lines between their lands, and in the determination of the matter we find no substantial error committed by the trial judge which necessitates another trial.

No error.  