(after stating the case.) All the evidence is sent up with the record. This is useless, for the findings of fact upon the issues submitted to the jury are final, and we can-, not review or revise these findings; nor can we review the evidence or pass upon the correctness of the verdict of the jury. Only so much of the evidence as is necessary to a clear understanding of the exceptions taken, and of the questions of law involved, should be sent up with the record.
Only two exceptions are presented :
First: To the use of the map or survey by the witness Denton. As we understand the ruling of his Honor, the map or survey was not admitted as evidence, and it was *648inadmissible as such. Jones v. Huggins, 1 Dev., 223; Dancy v. Sugg, 2 D. & B., 515. But it was clearly competent for the purpose of enabling the witness to explain his testimony and enabling the jury to understand it. Diagrams, plats and the like are of frequent use for this purpose in the trial of causes, and for such purpose the use of the map in question was admissible. State v. Whiteacre, 98 N. C., 753.
The second exception was to the refusal of his Honor to charge as requested, and it is insisted by counsel for defendant that, as the deed under which, the plaintiffs claim calls for the Isaac T. Avery line as one of the boundaries, and one of the witnesses testified, as appears in evidence, that “ this boundary (meaning Avery’s) covers the land where defendant lives,” the case of Cansler v. Fite, 5 Jones, 424, is conclusive.
This might be so if there were no conflicting evidence, but as there was conflicting evidence it was the sole province of the jury, under the instructions of his Honor as to the law applicable, to ascertain where the boundary lines of the land in controversy were.
When there is a call for the lines of a prior deed or grant, which are known and established, these lines will ordinarily control, but if not known and established they must be ascertained and governed by the calls in the grant or deed, under and through which the person holding the prior deed derives his title. Carson v. Burnett, 1 D. & B., 546; Blount v. Benbury, 2 Hay, 542; Fruit v. Brower, 2 Hawks, 337.
The boundaries called for in the oldest grant, where the title has not been affected by adverse possession or by adverse possession under color of title, must control.
In the case before us the plaintiffs claim title under the grant of December 5th, 1815, upon an entry made January 1st, 1814, and the deed of 1870 was a link in their chain of title. The defendants claim through the grant of November, 1817, upon an entry made January 4th, 1814. In the *649absence of such adverse possession or possession under color of title, the true lines would be those of the grant of 1815, .and as the evidence was conflicting it was properly left to the jury to say where the true boundary lines were, and there was no error in refusing the instructions asked. “ It is not the duty of the Judge to charge upon any single selected fact, but to charge the law on the case with reference to all the facts as the jury may find them.” Wilson v. White, 80 N. C., 280. There was no exception to the charge of his Honor, as given, and it is to be assumed that he did this.
There is no error. Affirmed.