Roberts v. . Dickey

*69 Merrimon, C. J. after stating the case: The report is very-indefinite and unsatisfactory. It fails to specify, with reasonable precision, what lines the parties respectively claimed and where they were. What the matter in dispute was cannot be seen from it. The contentions of the parties should appear so that what the jury determined can be seen and understood, and as welJ, so that the parties may readily present their objections to the action of the jury and that of the processioner. The report goes little beyond designating a line. Porter v. Durham, 90 N. C., 55; Forney v. Williamson, 98 N. C., 329; Euliss v. McAdams, 101 N. C., 391. The Court properly sustained the exceptions and set aside the report, and directed further action. This much of the judgment must be affirmed. We are of opinion, however, that the Court ought not to have given judgment against the defendant for the costs of the report. The costs in processioning proceedings are regulated specially by the statute (The Gode,%% 1927,1928). When the land is processioned without controversy, the “ fees of the processioner and Clerk shall be paid by the proprietor of the land ” processioned. But in case of controversy, as in this case, and as contemplated by section 1928, cited above, “ the party against whom the decision is made shall pay all costs.” The statute so expressly provides, and the general statutory regulations in respect to costs do not apply. The controversy is not yet ended, and the Court cannot see who is liable for the costs. The judgment in respect to costs must be reversed, and the case disposed of according to law. Affirmed as to setting aside report. Reversed as to costs.