Bustin v. Christie, 3 N.C. 99, 2 Hayw. 99 (1799)

April 1799 · North Carolina Superior Court

3 N.C. 99, 2 Hayw. 99

Halifax,

April Term, 1799.

Alfred Moore, John Haywood, es„

Bustin vs. Christie.

"D'JECTMENT. The land in dispute was a triangular piece and the question was, whether or not it was included within the bounds of Jeffries’- patent, under whom the plaintiff claimed : If it be, the plaintiff is entitled to recover ; if otherwise, not. Jeffries5- patent begun on Fishing Creek, then east 320 poles, along Pollock’s line to Pollock’s comer, thence north to Bryant’s, then along Bryant’s line 320 poles to the creek. A north course from Pollock’s corner, intersects Bryant’s line, at the distance only of 130 instead of 320 poles from the creek, and at a point 190 poles from Bryant’s corner.. The plaintiff contended that from Pollock’s corner to Bryant’s, described a line from one corner to the other.. The defendant, that the line described in the patent being from Pollock’s corner north conk! not be de» parted from ; the words of the patent were as well satisfied should the line from Pollock’s corner terminate at Bryant’s line, as if it terminated at Bryant’s coiner. And his counsel cited the reported case of Busten against Hill, Haywcod’s Reports, 22, relative to the same land, where Judge Williams liad s.j determined.

Moore, Justice.

^There is parol evidence in this case, tending to prove, that there was an old marked line from Pollock’s to liryant’i corner; and some ancient deeds are bounded by that line. The first settlers of this country risked their lives in coming to it, then a wilderness inhabited by savages, to take up lands, and to improve their circumstances : they were invited to do so by the lords proprietors, who sat at their ease at home and received the purchpase money, and derived a revenue from the lands after they were sold : they appointed apd continued in office, the persons who received entries, made the surveys and issued the grants ; and they in justice were responsable for their mistakes. The settlers of the country had no share in the appointment, nor in any of the mistakes that happened. — If these officers wronged the lords proprietors, the blame is imputable to the lords proprietors themselves : if they wronged any purchaser by a mistake, that should be rectified, and ought not to prejudice him. The report states a number of cases in which mistakes have been rectified by juries, upon trials in ejectment, upon evidence of the mistake ; and if these cases wtre law formerly, they are so. now — and ought to. prevail in the present as well as in any other case. I am of opinion, if the jury are satisfied the line really intended, was from one porner to the other, that they should find for the plaintiff, notwithstanding it is described 14 the patent as a line funning north from pollock’s corner.

Verdict ai^Hfccment accordingly.

Note. — We should be cautioinP^^Msarting from the words of a deed: but here it stood the lace of the deed, whether to go a north course, or OT^sm’s corner; and that is such an ambiguity as may be explained in a dptd.