-
North Carolina – posterior line
I’ve got a 373 page PDF which has cases citing Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481 (1869) which is probably 200 cases all over the Country citing our case.
This N.C. case pops up: Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N.C. 511 (1898), it has a map so I’m reading it. They are talking about a posterior line, I’ve never head that, maybe it means a senior line but I’m not sure.
“Devl. Deeds, å¤ 835, says: ÛÏBut it is doubtful how far arbitrary rules can be of service where the only object is to determine the intention of the parties. In fact, the truth was well expressed by Mr. Justice Sanderson (Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481, 487), who said that Û÷in the construction of written instruments, we have never derived much aid from the technical rules of the books. The only rule of much value is to place ourselves as near as possible in the seats which were occupied by the parties at the time the written instrument was executed; then, taking it by its four corners, read it.Ûª This is the main object of all construction. When the intention of the parties can be ascertained, nothing remains but to effectuate that intention.Û Also, Id. å¤å¤ 836, 839, 1013; Sedgw. & W. Tr. Title Land, å¤ 856; Tied. Real Prop. å¤ 827; Washb. Real Prop. p. 403, par. 21; Id. p. 408 par. 24.”
-
1 Reply
-
I have it backwards. Posterior means subsequent. I think from the context of the discussion they mean a line after a series of lines that closes on a called for grant.
“The Smith grant was runfromAtoB,fromBtoC,fromCtoD,fromDtoE,from E to F, and therefore the line from F and those following are what is termed a ÛÏposterior line,Û and cannot be located by a reversed survey. To locate a line, the original order of survey must be observed and followed, and a posterior line cannot be controlled by a reversed survey. This rule is too firmly established by numerous decisions of this court to be disputed now. *725 Duncan v. Hall, 117 N. C. 443, 23 S. E. 362; Norwood v. Crawford, 114 N. C. 513, 19 S. E. 349; Graybeal v. Powers, 76 N. C. 66; Harry v. Graham, 18 N. C. 76. It is the Smith grant that we are locating, and it is the northern boundary line which is in dispute. This line is not bounded by the Jordan grant, and cannot be located by a survey of that grant.”
Log in to reply.