The opinion
Eairoloth, C. J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority. In this case the original grant, under which the plaintiff claims, contains over 55 lines and corners, on the waters of Savannah creek, Green’s creek and Con-nely’s creek, beginning in the county line and returning to said county line at a hickory which cannot be found, *636 and thence to the beginning. The grant gives the course and distance of each line, except the last one, which calls for the county line to the first corner.
The controversy arises on the course to be followed from corner No. 51, that is to say between 51 and 52 corners. Corner 51 is admitted to be a true corner. Starting thence, the call in the grant is south 544 poles to a stalce, thence 873 east 840 poles to a hickory in the county line, thence along said line to the beginning.
According to the record before us the surveyor’s certificate agrees with the grant, but the plat on which the certificate is written marks a line which when run is found to be “ west 985 poles ” to a stake, starting from the agreed corner No. 51, that is to say from 51 to 52.
The question is, Does the grant control, or can parol evidence be heard to show that the line, “ west 985 poles,” drawn on the plat, is the true line? It is admitted that if the former controls the defendant is not a trespasser as •alleged, but if the latter controls then he is a trespasser. The defendant excepted to the admission of evidence tending to establish the line “ west 985 poles ” on the ground that such line was not called for in the original grant to Allison and Roge-s, under whom the plaintiff claimed, and because it contradicted the express calls of the grant.
Slagle, the surveyor, testified that following the calls of the grant would not reach the waters of Connely’s creek ■and that the lines would cross each other, and that the line <l west 985 ” would cross Connely’s creek; also that he could not find any hickory in the county line, and that ho “ did not find any marked line or corners after leaving dogwood and poplar at 47;” that the calls 48 to 53 inclusive were for stakes, and that 54 called for a hickory in the county line which he could not find. The plat has no *637 letters or figures to indicate course and distance. There was other evidence not necessary to recite. Judgment for plaintiff and appeal by defendant.
In the early history of our State many embarrassing questions of boundary arose, and in their consideration this Court laid down some rules which have been since followed, the general rule observed being that a grant or deed cannot be contradicted by parol testimony, to which there are some carefully guarded exceptions.
In Person v. Roundtree, 1 Martin, 18 , better reported in 1 Haywood (378), 436, the defendant entered the land, beginning at a point on Sliocco creek, and the actual survey proved on trial, and the lines run “ south,” &c., putting the entire lot entered on the south side of the creek, and he showed his actual possession of the same for some time. The grant, starting at the first station on Shocco creek, owing to some mistake called the first line “ north,” &c., putting the lands on the north side of the creek, so that the grant did not cover any of the land surveyed. The Court said the mistake should not prejudice the defendant, and that he was entitled to the land intended to be granted, which had been surveyed. And the same principle has been followed in other cases, and in Mauser v. Belton, 10 Ired., 358 , “ west ” was substituted for “ east ” upon competent testimony. In many ways the course and distance in the grant are controlled; as, if a natural object is called for, the distance called for in the grant or deed, whether it falls short or goes beyond the natural object, must yield ; and when a corner is some marked monument or tree well marked at the time of the grant, and can be shown by competent proof, the line must go to it, varying the course called for in the grant as little as practicable. In such cases the natural objects, as a stream, another’s established line, county line and the like, are allowed to *638 control because they are less liable to mislead than the calls of the deed, in which mistakes are more likely, owing to careless writing or copying by the surveyor or Secretary in filling up the grant from the plat or surveyor’s report.
Without attempting to refer to the many cases on this question, we refer to the well-considered case of Cherry v. Slade, 3 Murphy, 82, where some rules applicable here are laid down. The fourth rule was : “Where there are no natural boundaries called for, no marked trees or corners to bo found, nor the places where they once stood can be ascertained and identified by evidence, or where no lines or corners of an adjacent tract are called for, in all such cases we are of necessity confined to the courses and distances described in the patent or deed; for, however fallacious such guides may be, there are none others left for the location.” P. 91. This rule is decisive of the present case. There is no call in the original grant for such a line as “ west 985 ” from corner 51, nor for any corner. There is no proof of such line or corner. In fact, the witness who surveyed the line says, “ I did not find any marked line or corners.” The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the plat attached to the grant shows such a line as “ west 985.” As we have said, the plat shows nothing but bare lines on thepapef, with no letters or figures indicating either course or distance. However the plat annexed to a grant may in some cases aid in the interpretation of ambiguous calls, it can have no effect in this case, since it does not purport to lay down any natural. course or natural object at its terminus on said line. Literary Fund v. Clark, 9 Ired., 58 .
In Graybeal v. Powers, 76 N. C., 66 , the Court said: “ Marked line trees and corners, not. called for, have been allowed to control an obvious mistake in regard to course; *639 for instance, a mere slip of the pen in writing ‘north’ instead of ‘south ’ and the like, but yon must in the language ‘go by the distance’ unless it be controlled by a call for a natural boundary, whether it fall short of or go beyond a tree, marked as a common tree, but which is not called for. To allow the terms of a written instrument to be varied by parol evidence is a proposition for which no lawyer will contend. The only exception is made by our courts in questions of boundary, when, there being no natural boundary called for, parol evidence corroborated by natural evidence of trees marked at the time, although not called for, is allowed to correct or explain a mistake in the courses of the grant; to allow it in this instance would be not to correct a mistake but supersede a line fixed by the rules of law by putting in its place a line marked by one of the parties, but which, for some reason best known to himself, he chose not to have set out in the grant.” In that case his Honor authorized the jury to follow a line marked by one of the parties when he took out his grant, which line was inserted in the grant, and this Court held that there was error.
In Mizell v. Simmons, 79 N. C., 182 , it was said: “Course and distance is a certain description in itself, and to make it yield to a ‘ supposed line’ supported by neither deed, possession nor marked boundaries would be to make the more certain yield to the less certain and fallacious when the rule is that course and distance give way only to something which is more certain.” Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. C., 212 .
Ordinarily quantity is not description, but where the boundaries are doubtful it may become important. There is no doubt about the boundary, according to the terms of the grant, and 'we have said there is no other competent evidence to show any other lines.
*640 In Reddich v. Leggett, 3 Murphy (539), 439, it is thus stated: “ I grant to J. S. one thousand acres of land and no more, bounded as follows, &c., and two thousand acres are included in the lines. The two thousand acres pass, as the buts and bounds are more certain than quantity, which depends on admeasurement and calculation ; and the quantity is in no way material, except in lands where the boundaries are doubtful, and then it may be thrown into the one scale or the other as a circumstance.”
Our conclusion then is that the bare line on the plat, with no letters or figures to indicate course and distance, unsupported by any marked trees, corner or natural boundary, and no places where they once stood can be ascertained by evidence, is not sufficient evidence to be submitted to a jury to contradict or control course and distance set out in the grant. Young v. Railroad, 116 N. C., 932 . As the case turns upon this question, it is unnecessary to consider other exceptions.
Eueches, J.: I concur in the dissenting opinion.