Our statute on this subject, Revisal, cb. 10, see. 325 at seq., provides that when an owner of land having disputed boundaries desires to establish their location, he shall file a petition under oath before the clerk, setting forth the facts sufficient to establish the correct location as claimed by him, and designating as defendants all adjoining owners whose interest may be affected by the location of the lines in dispute; and thereupon service having been first issued and served on the parties defendant, if no answer is filed, judgment shall be entered establishing the lines as claimed by the petitioner. Under other sections of the Revisal appropriate to special proceedings, if answer is filed raising an issue as to title, or other material issues in bar of plaintiff’s right to' the relief prayed for, the same shall be transferred to' the civil-issue docket, to be considered* and determined according to the course and practice of the court. , Woody v. Fountain, 143 N. C., 66; Jackson v. Williams, ante, 203; Biggs v. Gurganus, ante, 173. In case answer is filed raising an issue only on the location as claimed by plaintiff, then the law directs that the clerk shall issue an order to the county or other competent surveyor, who shall survey said line or lines according to the contention of both parties, and make report with a map showing the survey, and not more than thirty days from the date of the order. The clerk shall thereupon hear the matter and give judgment fixing the location of the line. If either party desires to except to this judgment of the clerk determining the line, he may do so within ten days, on giving proper notice, and thereupon the clerk is directed to transmit the issues raised before him to the next term of the Superior Court for trial by jury, etc.
In the present case, it appears from a perusal of the pleadings that the allegations only raise an issue as to the location of the disputed lines. The plaintiff, alleging possession and ownership of a certain tract of land, describing the same by metes and bounds, states, further, that defendant is owner of an adjoining tract, giving the boundaries of same.
The petitioner further avers xthat two of the lines are in dispute, and sets forth and describes the location of these lines as claimed by him, with clearness and precision.
The answer sets forth and describes the tract of land owned by defendant, giving the description by metes and bounds, and, in effect' and substance, denies all the allegations of the peti*351tion, in so far as tbe same conflict with, bis title and description. Tbe land so described is tbe tract alleged and referred to by tbe plaintiff as an adjoining tract. There is no denial of plaintiff’s ownership of the tract claimed by him, and it is clear that tbe issue is in no sense an issue as to title, but only as to location or boundary, and tbe ruling below directing in tbe first instance that a survey should be bad, is in accordance with tbe express provisions of tbe statute, and tbe same is
Affirmed.