
    WILLIAMS v. SHOEMAKER.
    (November 20, 1900.)
    1. Boundaries — Evidence to Establish — Sufficiency.
    Evidence in this case is held to be sufficient to warrant charge of Court to the jury to find the boundary claimed by the defendant.
    Ctvtl Actiow by O. G. Williams vs. M. II. Shoemaker, guardian, Luphelia Dishman and her husband, Elam Dish-man, Elizabeth Shoemaker, Delpha Shoemaker, Florence Shoemaker and James Shoemaker, heard by Judge E. W. Timberlalce and a jury, St February Term, 1900, of Ibedei/l Superior Court.
    
      
      
    
    Erom judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appealed.
    
      L. O. Oaldwell and W. G. Lewis, for plaintiffs.
    
      B. F. Long, and Arm-field & Turner, fo-r defendants.
   MONTGOMERY, J.

Tbe plaintiff instituted this proceeding before tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court, under chapter 22 of the acts of 1893, to have established a line between himself and the defendants. It was transferred to the Superior Court in term, and the following issue was submitted to the jury: “Which is the true line between the plaintiff and the defendants — the line from 1 to 4, as claimed by the plaintiff, or the line from B to D, as claimed by the defendants ?” His Honor instructed the jury that if they believed the evidence, they would locate the land between plaintiff and defendants from B to D, and that they answer the issue “from B to D,” and the exception by the plaintiff to that charge is the only exception in the case. The plaintiff put in evidence a grant to himself from tbe State to tbe land wbicb be claimed, and also a deed from one Hall to Bnrwell Shoemaker to the^ tract of land wbicb tbe defendants claim. Tbe point of beginning (tbe first call) in tbe Shoemaker deed is shown by all tbe witnesses to be a white oak at tbe letter A on tbe map. Tbe call (second) from A is east 164 poles to a stake in tbe field on Sharpe’s line. Tbe claim of tbe plaintiff is that tbe line last mentioned should not have been run 164 poles, but that it should have been stopped at 1, a marked maple tree 14S poles from A. Tbe land in dispute is almost a parallelogram, 16 poles at one end, and tbe other end being a little longer; tbe line claimed by tbe plaintiff running northwest and southeast from 1 to 4 on tbe map, and that claimed by tbe defendants being almost due north and south from B to D on tbe map. The survey of tbe plaintiff’s tract, as it appears upon tbe map, locates tbe beginning point at the letter B, 164 poles from A, tbe beginning of tbe Shoemaker tract, according to tbe call; and tbe subsequent calls are followed according to courses and distances mentioned, in tbe grant, tbe other corners represented by tbe figures 2 and 3 and tbe letters D and B. Tbe plaintiff in bis examination fixed the line as claimed by the defendants from B to I). He testified on cross-examination: “I entered this land. I was one of tbe commissioners to divide it among the -minor heirs of Burwell Shoemaker, and while having it surveyed I found that tbe Shoemakers bad no deed for the land I entered. I entered it tbe next day. Shoemakers bad been in possession of tbe land for many years, but I knew that they bad no record, and I entered it, and brought suit and gained -it. The first call in my grant 'begins at a pine, Shoemaker'scorner.’ There is a pine at B. When I bad it surveyed, I directed the surveyor to start at tbe pine at B, and run from there to 2; thence to 3; thence to 'D; thence to B, tbe beginning. Tbis will give me all tbe land I entered, and for which. I received a grant. I do not know where, the line between Shoemaker and myself is. That is what I am trying to find out.”

The only possible ground we can see upon which the plaintiff rested his claim was in the suggestion made in the Brief of his counsel that G. W. Clegg, one of the witnesses, testified that he knew the old man Shoemaker, the point 1, the maple, and told him it was his (Shoemaker’s) corner. But it appeared in the examination of Clegg, that the conversation with Shoemaker occurred 28 years before the trial; that at that time Shoemaker owned both sides of the disputed line; that he owned the Sharpe place, also; ■and that the maple at 1 was a corner of the Sharpe land, and is no part of the land in dispute. We have read with interest the testimony of the surveyor concerning the method by which he located the southern end of the line, claimed by the defendants at D on the map — the third call in the deed— and the Brief of the defendant’s counsel on that matter, but it is not- necessary to make any decision on that point in This case. • • •

No error.  