Southern v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 06 January 1937
• Docket Number: No. 752.,752.
• Citation: 211 N.C. 121,189 S.E. 190
• Parties: SOUTHERN. v. FREEMAN et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

211 N.C. 121

189 S.E. 190

SOUTHERN.

v.FREEMAN et al.

No. 752.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 6, 1937.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Wilson Warlick, Judge.

Action by Walter Southern against Essie L. Freeman and another. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Proceeding to establish a boundary line between lands of plaintiff and defendants. Defendants pleaded adverse possession up to the line claimed by them. The matter was heard by the clerk of the superior court and judgment rendered for plaintiff, from which defendants appealed to the superior court. The trial in the superior court at term, upon issues submitted to the jury, resulted in verdict determining the true boundary line to be that claimed by defendants.

The judgment on the verdict described the true dividing line as "beginning at a stone * * * designated on map as point 'B, ' and running eastwardly to a stake near an ash tree on bank of old run of Belews Creek, point 'G'."

Plaintiff appealed to this court.

William Graves and Wm. H. Boyer, both of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

Jno. C. Wallace and Harvey A. Lupton, both of Winston-Salem, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, appellant, assigns as error the overruling of his objection to the following question propounded to the witness F. O. Jones (a surveyor): "Q. I will ask you this question: relating to the ash and the stone that you found, and on their agreement, what would you say as to the correct line that was pointed out to you then in 1934? A. Well, it looked like it was practically the line. In consequence of what they pointed out, I made markings all the way along the line from the point where I started, and they are there now. I found no other marks or markings anywhere except those, and there is none there now."

The witness had previously testified that in 1934, at the instance of plaintiff and in the presence of defendants, he had run the division line, which was pointed out by them and had marked the same, beginning at a stone and running to a stake on the old run of the creek near an ash tree. It is obvious that the evidence elicited had reference to the identification of the line which the witness had previously surveyed.

Besides, the exception was to the question only. The answer, responsive to the purpose rather than the form of the inquiry, affords no just ground of complaint. Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N.C. 266, 136 S.E. 726; Martin v. Knitting Co., 189 N.C. 644, 127 S.E. 688; Gilland v. Stone Co.,...