Tbe declarations of deceased persons as evidence on questions of private boundary and general reputation on such an issue has been the subject of a number of recent decisions of this Court. Lumber Co. v. Branch, 150 N. C., 240; Bland v. Beasley, 140 N. C., 629; Bullard v. Hollingsworth. 140 N. C., 634; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 138 N. C., 504; Yow v. Hamilton, 136 N. C., 357; Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. C., 15.
As to declarations of a single witness, it is required that tbe declarant be dead when they are offered, and they should bave *412been made before the controversy arose, and by a disinterested person; and, both as to declarations and general reputation, the evidence must not be indefinite and general in its nature, but, as said in Bland v. Beasley, supra, “It must attach itself to some monument of boundary or natural object, or be fortified by evidence of occupation and acquiescence tending to give tbe land some fixed and definite location.”
In Gaynor’s case, supra, tbe declaration was in reference to a. tree. In Hemphill’s case, supra, tbe general reputation was admitted tbat a divisional line ran along tbe top of a certain ridge, a natural object, otherwise described and defined in tbe testimony. Tbe objection chiefly urged to tbe testimony admitted in tbe present case was tbat tbe declarant was not physically present at tbe corner when tbe declarations were made, and that be did not sufficiently designate and describe tbe tree. But this first question has been expressly decided against appellant’s position in Westfelt v. Adams, 131 N. C., 379, citing Scoggins v. Dalrymple, 52 N. C., 46; and on tbe second, while tbe declarant did not speak of tbe beginning corner in express words as a gum, tbe tree designated as the beginning corner in tbe grant, be gave a very clear indication of its placing, tbe important question; “right at tbe intersection of those trails, Yancey Ridge and tbe one leading from Silas Coffey’s, on main "Wilson’s Creek, across Rock House Creek to Madison Gragg’s,” and the marked gum was found 'just where be bad stated. Even if it be conceded tbat tbe witness should name tbe tree designated in tbe grant, this, by fair intendment, was also done; thus, “He didn’t say whether it was a pine, black gum, oak or chestnut. I bad tbe calls of tbe piece of land. I bad it and read it to him.”
Tbe objection tbat there was no evidence as to tbe location of tbe 100-acre grant is without ’merit. There was evidence as to tbe location of tbe beginning corner called for in this grant, “A maple standing on the N. E. side of tbe ridge,” and there was testimony as to natural objects called for in tbe grant, which further tended to locate it.
¥e find no reversible error in tbe trial, and tbe judgment on tbe verdict is affirmed.