Davidson v. Arledge

• Decision Date: 28 February 1883
• Citation: 88 N.C. 326
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: A. B. DAVIDSON v. M. D. ARLEDGE.

88 N.C. 326

A. B. DAVIDSON

v.M. D. ARLEDGE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1883.

EJECTMENT tried at January Special Term, 1882, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Bennett, J.

Appeal by plaintiff.

Messrs. Jones & Johnston, for plaintiff .

Messrs. Wilson & Son and Burwell & Walker, for defendant .

SMITH, C. J.

The controversy in this cause is as to the proper location of the boundary line between two adjacent lots, one of which belongs to the plaintiff, the other to the defendant.

In the original laying off and plan of the town, now the city of Charlotte, a square bounded by Second, Tryon, Third and College streets, and embracing both lots, known as square number ten, was divided into equal parts by a line extending from Third to Second street, bisecting the boundary of the square on those streets, and made the rear line of the lots fronting on Tryon and College streets. These lines extending across the square from Tryon to College streets at points equally distant one from the other, and forming right angles at their intersection with the rear line first mentioned, divided the entire square into eight lots, four fronting on Tryon and the same number fronting on College street, each of the width of ninety-nine feet and of the depth of one hundred and ninety-eight feet.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

These four lots fronting on Tryon street, counting from Third to Second street, were numbered successively 69, 70, 71 and 72; while those on College street, enumerated in the same direction, were designated as 77, 78, 79 and 80.

A divisional line running from a point on Tryon street, equally distant from the corners of the square on that street to a point on College street, also equally distant from the corners of the square on that street, will terminate on College street at the place contended for by the plaintiff, and put the disputed territory within the limits of lot 78, owned by him.

The defendant claims that the dividing line, whatever may have been its original location, is formed by running from the admitted starting point on Tryon street, and terminating on College street, eighteen feet northeast from the terminus claimed by the plaintiff, as represented by dotted lines in the diagram.

The plaintiff deduces his title through an unbroken series of deeds, commencing with a deed executed by Henry Eustace McCulloch to the commissioners of Charlotte in 1767, and extending down to the deed executed by Daniel Asbury to William E. White in 1858, in all of which, except the first, the land is described as lots Nos. 69, 70, 77 and 78.

The plaintiff then introduced the will of W. E. White conferring an authority upon his executor to sell, and a deed of conveyance from the executor to himself on May 22d, 1869, describing the lots as being in the city of Charlotte in these words: “The following lots in said city, and known and designated on the plan thereof as numbers sixty-nine (69), seventyseven (77), seventy (70), and seventy-eight (78), in square number 10, lying on Tryon street and College street, being the property on which said testator lived at his death.” These lots, as shown in the diagram, constitute the area of the square lying on the northeast of the central dividing line from Tryon to College street, the true position of which forms the subject of dispute.

The defendant derives his title from the deed of Joseph H. Wilson, administrator of one R. E. Carson, a former owner, bearing date May 3d, 1861, for lots number 79 and 80, being the two fronting on College street, and nearest to Second street, forming one-fourth part of the square, to William E. White, and a deed from the executor made to the defendant on June 14th, 1870, in which the land is described as “that portion of lots number 79 and 80 fronting on College street and running back 80 feet to the line of the dower of Mrs. Carson; thence with said dower line to the line of the lots of A. B. Davidson; thence with his line 80 feet to College street; thence with College street 198 feet to the beginning.”

It was shown that, upon measurement from the intersection of Third and College streets, as Third street was first laid out, and disregarding its subsequent widening, the distance to the point where the black dividing line meets College street is one hundred and ninety-eight feet, while to the point where the dotted line is met the distance is one hundred and eighty feet--the difference being eighteen feet, the length of the base line of the portion in contest.

In like manner, measuring on College street from the corner of the defendant's lot on Second street, the distance thence to the point marked 4, where the black line meets College street, is one hundred and ninety-four feet, while if extended to the dotted line at three it is two hundred and twelve feet.

From these measurements it is manifest, and the contrary does not seem to have been pressed, that according...