The following is the order of importance in boundaries: first, the highest regard is had to natural boundaries ; Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. C. 212, 6 S. E. 727; Walrod v. Flanigan, 75 Ia. 365, 39 N. W. 645; Morse v. Rollins, 121 Pa. 537, 15 Atl. 645; Hughes v. Cawthorn, 35 Fed. 248; Wood v. Ramsey, 71 Md. 9, 17 Atl. 563; McAninch v. Freeman, 69 Tex. 445, 4 S. W. 369; second, to lines actually run and corners marked at the time of the grant ; third, if the lines and courses of an adjoining tract are called- for, the lines will he extended, if they are sufficiently established, and no other departure from the deed is required, preference being given to marked lines ; fourth, to courses and dis tances ; Yanish v. Tarbox, 49 Minn. 268, 51 N. W. 1051.
Courses and distances give way to monu ments, but they must be of a permanent character, and the place where they are at the time of the conveyance must be satisfac torily located ; Brown v. Morrill, 91 Mich. 29, 51 N. W. 700; Whitehead v. Ragan, 106 Mo. 231, 17 S. W. 307. But this is a mere rule of construction; Green v. Horn, 207 N. Y. 489, 101 N. E. 430. When a description in a deed by metes and bounds conflicts with a description by reference to plats, the for mer governs; Waldin v. Smith, 76 Ia. 652, 39 N. W. 82.
Parol evidence is often admissible to iden tify and ascertain the locality of monuments called for by a description; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 267; Frost v. Spaulding, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 445, 31 Am. Dec. 150; and where the description is ambiguous, the practical construction given by the par ties may be shown; Choate v. Burnham, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 274. Common reputation may be admitted to identify monuments, especial ly if of a public or quasi-public nature; Griffin v. Graham, 8 N. C. 116, 9 Am. Dec. 619; Harmer v. Morris, 1 McLean, 45, Fed. Cas. No. 6,076; Nelson v. Hall, 1 McLean, 518, Fed. Cas. No. 10,107; Whitney v. Smith, 10 N. H. 43; Cravenson v. Meriwither, 2 A. K. Marph. (Ky.) 158; Beaty v. Hudson, 9 Dana (Ky.) 322; Smith v. Shackleford, 9
Dana (Ky.) 465 ; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 341, 8 L. Ed. 415 ; Harriman v. Brown, 8 Leigh (Va.) 697; McCoy's Lessee v. Gal loway, 3 Ohio, 282, 17 Am. Dec. 591. On a conflict of boundaries between deeds from the same person, the one that was first ex ecuted controls; Flynn v. Sparks, 11 S. W. 206, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 960. Where there are two conflicting monuments, and one corre sponds with the courses and distances, that one should be taken and the other rejected as surplusage; Zeibold v. Foster, 118 Mo. 349, 24 S. W. 155.
The determination of the boundaries of the states is placed by the constitution in the supreme court of the United States; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 657, 9 L. Ed. 1233; id., 4 How. (U. S.) 591, 11 L. Ed. 1116; Virginia v. West Vir ginia, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 39, 20 L. Ed. 67. This position was taken by that court against the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, who held that a controversy between states, or between individuals, in relation to the boundaries of a state, falls within the prov ince of the court. where the snit is brought to try a right of property in the soil, or any other right which is properly the subject of Judicial cognizance and decision ; but not a contest for rights of sovereignty and juris diction between states over any particular territory. This he held to be. a political question; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 752, 9 L. Ed. 1233. All the cases of boundary disputes between states which arose prior to the constitution and were tried under the articles of confederation, by courts specially constituted by Congress, are collected in 131 U. S. App. II.
Long acquiestence in the assertion of a particular boundary between states and the exercise of sovereignty within it, should be accepted as conclusive; Louisiana v. Missis sippi, 202 U. S. 1, 26 Sup. Ct. 571, 50 L. Ed. 934.
See LINE.
As to state boundaries, when they are rivers, see Avtammx;