Boyce v. White

• Decision Date: 17 September 1947
• Docket Number: 20
• Parties: BOYCE v. WHITE et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

44 S.E.2d 49

227 N.C. 640

BOYCE v. WHITE et al.

No. 20

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 17, 1947

This was an action to determine the location of the boundary line between the adjoining lands of plaintiff and defendants.

By consent the case was heard by a referee, who reported findings of fact and conclusions of law locating the line substantially as contended by the defendants. Plaintiff's exceptions thereto were overruled and the referee's report confirmed by the trial judge. Plaintiff appealed.

W A. Worth, of Elizabeth City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marvin Wilson, of Edenton, and J. A. Pritchett, of Windsor, for defendants-appellees.

DEVIN Justice.

Both parties claim title from the same source. J. M. Forehand owned two adjoining tracts of land, the dividing line between them extending generally northwest and southeast. In 1920 he conveyed the tract lying northeast of the dividing line to his son J. Lester Forehand, and on same date conveyed the land lying southwest of the line to his daughter Corinne Forehand Bell. In 1943 J. Lester Forehand conveyed his land so acquired to the defendants, and in same year Corinne Forehand Bell conveyed her tract of land to the plaintiff. A controversy arose between the plaintiff and defendants as to the location of the dividing line between these tracts of land. The trial was by referee.

It was found by the referee that the dividing line described in the deeds from J. M. Forehand, as well as in the deeds from his predecessors in title, was that designated on the Court map by the numerals 2 to 15, which is the line claimed by the plaintiff. However, the referee found that the title to two parcels of land, aggregating 7.62 acres, lying on the southwest side of this dividing line, had been acquired by the defendants and their predecessors in title by adverse possession for more than 20 years, and concluded that in consequence the true dividing line should be located in accordance with the defendants' contentions so as to include the area referred to, and to require the establishment of the line designated on the map by the letters ABD. Plaintiff's exception to this finding and conclusion was overruled by the trial judge, and in this we think there was error.

All the deeds appearing in the record, as found by the referee, show the southwest boundary of the defendants' land (the J Lester Forehand tract) to be that indicated on the map by the numerals 2 to 15. Neither defendants' deed, dated 1943 nor those of their predecessors in title cover the disputed parcels of land, or any land southwest of the line 2 to 15. Defendants' actual possession could not have been of longer duration than three years, nor could they extend the time of their...