Piles Bouldin

Decision Date10 March 1826
Citation24 U.S. 325,6 L.Ed. 486,11 Wheat. 325
PartiesPILES and Others, Plaintiffs in Error, against BOULDIN and Others, Defendants in Error
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Justice DUVALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This cause is brought up by writ of error from the judgment of the Circuit Court for the District of West Tennessee.

The lessee of Bouldin and others, who were plaintiffs in the Court below, brought an ejectment against Conrad Piles and others, for a tract of land containing 2,500 acres, lying in Overton county, on Wolf river, granted by the State of North Carolina, by patent dated July 10, 1788, to Thomas and Robert King, who, by deed bearing date 25th of March, 1793, for a valuable consideration, conveyed the same to David Ross of Virginia. Ross, by his last will and testament duly proved and recorded, devised the same to his four children, namely, Eliza Myers, wife of Jacob Myers, Amanda A. Duffield wife of John Duffield, Frederick A. Ross, and David Ross, jun. the lessors of the plaintiff, as tenants in common in fee.

The defendant, Piles, rested his defence on the location of several grants which were offered in evidence on the trial: (1.) A grant dated 24th of December, 1798, founded on a warrant dated 10th of March, 1780, by the State of North Carolina, to Henry Rowan, for a tract containing 320 acres, called Walnut Grove, lying in Hawkins county, on Spring creek. (2.) A grant bearing the same date, and founded on the same warrant, by the State of North Carolina to Henry Rowan, for another tract containing 320 acres, adjoining Walnut Grove, and having the same beginning. This tract was conveyed by deed dated 22d of September, 1800, for a valuable consideration, to Conrad Piles, and is described to include a cabin known by the name of Livingston's cabin. (3.) A grant bearing date on the 15th of August, 1808, to Conrad Piles, by the State of Tennessee, for atract lying in Overton county, on Rotton's fork of Wolf river containing 200 acres; and, (4.) Another tract adjoining the former, containing the like quantity, granted by patent of the same date to Conrad Piles. Piles possessed both the tracts granted to Rowan; one by purchase, the other by a parol lease for years. All these tracts are located on the plat exhibited on the trial, and none of the locations were contested. The title of the plaintiffs is admitted to be regularly deduced from the first patentee.

The defendants read in evidence the two grants before mentioned from the State of North Carolina to Henry Rowan, for 320 acres each; the first is described as lying in Hawkins county, 'beginning on two hickories, an ash, and a Spanish oak, on the north side of Spring creek; running north 50 poles to a stake; west 335 poles to a stake; south 167 poles to a stake, crossing Spring creek; east 335 poles to a stake; and thence to the beginning.' The second tract has the same beginning, calls 'to adjoin the first, running east 335 poles to a stake, north 167 poles to a stake; west 335 poles to a stake; then to the beginning.' Also, two grants from the State of Tennessee to himself for 200 acres each, dated 15th of August, 1808. These grants interfere with the plaintiff's grant of 2,500 acres, and cover all the land of which the defendant was in possession within the bounds of the plaintiff's grant at the commencement of the suit, viz. the 17th of October, 1817. Nearly one half of Rowan's tract, called Walnut Grove, is included within the tract for which the ejectment is brought; the settlement called Livingston's cabin lies principally in that part of Walnut Grove thus running foul of the tract owned by the lessors of the plaintiff. Helm's improvement is contained partly in Walnut Grove, and within one of the tracts of 200 acres granted to Piles, which is included almost wholly in the tract of the lessors of the plaintiff, and includes both Livingston's cabin and Helm's settlement. Piles has made another settlement included in the tract called Walnut Grove, a part of which is contained within the lines of the tract for which the ejectment is brought. $The defendant, Piles, proved, that the grants before mentioned, to Rowan and to himself, covered all the lands of which he was possessed within the grant of the plaintiffs; he also proved, that the grant of Walnut Grove to to Rowan included Livingston's cabin as represented on the plat, and that he had been in the peaceable possession thereof for more than eight years before the commencement of this suit; and that he had also been in possession of a piece of ground within one of the grants to himself, and which is also within the plaintiff's grant, and which he had held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Meir-Nandorf v. Milner
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1921
    ...Co. v. Painter, 100 Va. 507, 42 S.E. 300; Brown v. Huger, 21 How. (U. S.) 305, 16 L.Ed. 125; Piles v. Bouldin, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 325, 6 L.Ed. 486; 13 Cyc. 607G; 2 Devlin on Real Estate, 3d sec. 835.) In an action for a breach of a covenant of warranty, evidence should not be heard to modify......
  • Brown v. Brown
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1958
    ...not be lightly cast aside. The legal effect of a deed is a matter for determination by the Court and, as was held in Piles v. Bouldin, Tenn., 24 U.S. 325, 6 L.Ed. 486, where there is no such ambiguity as would require parol explanations, the jury have nothing to do with the construction of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT