Brown v. Moore, 243 N.C. 78 (1955)

Nov. 2, 1955 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

243 N.C. 78

AARON R. BROWN and Wife, CARRIE L. BROWN, v. WILL A. MOORE, SAM RASBERRY, JAMES H. LOCUST, NORMAN BATTLE, JOHN KORNEGAY, JESSE KORNEGAY, JAMES KIRKMAN and JOHN LEWIS EXUM, Trustees of ZION CHURCH, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL ZION CHURCH IN AMERICA, OF CONTENTNEA TOWNSHIP, LENOIR COUNTY.

(Filed 2 November, 1955.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from Parker (Joseph W.), J., June Term, 1955, LENOIR.

Civil action to nullify report of arbitrators made after plaintiffs had withdrawn their consent, heard on motion to reform consent judgment entered.

This action involves a controversy as to the true dividing line between the land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendants in which a judgment by consent establishing the true dividing line was entered. Plaintiffs now move to vacate for that they did. not give their “true consent” and the line agreed upon is too indefinite and uncertain to be established on the ground. The court heard the motion, found the facts, and rendered judgment on the facts found, decreeing that the line run by the surveyor under the consent judgment is the true boundary line between the land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendants, and that the consent judgment is binding upon all parties. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

Albion Dunn for plaintiff appellants.

Wallace & Wallace and William F. Sivipson for defendant appellees.

PeR Curiam.

The court below found the facts, particularly that the line established in said judgment “is not indefinite or ambiguous,” and that the line run by the surveyor “is the true boundary line between the lands of plaintiffs and lands of defendants as set forth in said Consent Judgment.” There is no exception to the findings of fact, and no excep-tive assignment of error presents any question which requires discussion. Therefore, without approving or disapproving the procedure adopted, the judgment entered in the court below is

Affirmed.