Jackson Et Ux v. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 March 1910
• Citation: Jackson Et Ux v. Williams, 67 S.E. 755, 152 N.C. 203 (N.C. 1910)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JACKSON et ux. v. WILLIAMS.

67 S.E. 755

152 N.C. 203

JACKSON et ux.

v.WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 23, 1910.

1. Boundaries (§ 52^*)—Nature or Remedy— Processioning Proceeding.

A processioning proceeding is intended to effect a settlement of the location of disputed boundary lines, and the only issue of fact that can arise is the one in reference to the location of the boundary line; and the petitioner is not required to make out a perfect claim of title, but simple occupation of the land constitutes sufficient ownership to sustain the proceeding.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Boundaries, Dec. Dig. § 52.*]

2. Boundaries (§ 52*)—Nature of Remedy-Processioning Proceeding—Dismissal.

A processioning proceeding for the location of a disputed boundary line may be dismissed for irregularities and defects on its face, as any other legal proceeding may be dismissed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Boundaries, Dec-Dig. § 52.*]

3. Appeal and Error (§ 273*)^Exception to Charge—Effect of General Exception.

A "broadside exception" to a charge cannot be entertained on appeal.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 273;* Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 689, 690, 694-690.]

4. Judgment (§ 256*) — Exceptions — Conformity to Findings..

Where a judgment properly follows upon the findings of the jury, and in every particular conforms to the statute, an exception to it is without merit.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 446-454; Dec. Dig. § 256.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Martin County; Cooke, Judge.

Action by E. P. Jackson and wife against W. S. Williams. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following issue was submitted to the jury without objection: "What is the trueline between the lands of the plaintiffs and those of the defendant? Answer: That the dividing line between E. P. Jackson and wife, plaintiffs, and Seth Williams, defendant, is the red line, as shown on map from big red C to D and E."

Defendant moved for new trial. Motion overruled. Defendant excepted, and appealed from the judgment rendered.

The red lines (referred to in the statement of the case and in the opinion of the court) are indicated by the heavy black lines, and the red letters are indicated by large capital letters, A B C D E.

The blue lines (referred to in the opinion of the court) are indicated by the dotted lines, and the blue letters are indicated by the small letters, abed.

A. R. Dunning, for appellant.

Winston & Everett, for appellees.

BROWN, J. The learned counsel for defendant assigns error in these words: "The exceptions are hereby grouped, as required by the court: (1) To the refusal of the court to nonsuit. (2) To the charge. (3) To the judgment."

We are not prepared to hold, as contended by defendant, that the practice of nonsuiting, as now in vogue in civil actions, and in special proceedings generally, when an issue is raised, and they are transferred for trial to the superior court, is applicable to a properly constituted processioning proceeding. This proceeding is a peculiar one, and intended to effect an easy and expeditious settlement of the location of disputed boundary lines between adjoining tracts of land, and nothing else. It is not an action of ejectment or of trespass. Only one issue of fact can arise, and that must relate to the location of a boundary line. No execution can be issued upon the judgment for damages or possession. The petitioner is not required to make out a perfect claim of title, or to perfect it by long and adverse possession. Simple occupation of the land constitutes sufficient ownership to sustain the proceeding. Williams v. Hughes, 124 N. C. 3, 32 S. E. 325; Revisal §§ 325, 326. Of course, the proceeding may be dismissed for irregularities and defects on its face, as any other legal proceeding may...