320. Public administrator. The public administrator shall enter into bond, with three or more sureties, approved by the clerk, in the penal sum of eight thousand dollars, payable to the state of North Carolina, conditioned faithfully to perform the duties of his office, and obey all lawful orders of the clerk or other court touching the administration of the several estates that may come into his hands, and such bond shall be renewed every two years. Whenever the aggregate value of the real and personal property belonging to the several estates in the hands of the public administrator shall exceed the one-half of his bond, the clerk shall require him to enlarge his bond in amount so as to cover, at all times, at least the double of such aggregate.

Code, ss. 1390, 1391, 1392; 1868-9, c. 113, ss. 2, 3, 4. For actions on bond of administrator, see section 30. General law stated as to requirement as to bond; In re Brinson, 73-279. Where bond was not renewed, but upon notice good bond was offered, error to refuse to accept such bond: Trotter v. Mitchell, 115-193.

321. Public guardian. The public guardian shall enter into bond with three or more sureties, approved by the clerk of the superior court, in the penal sum of six thousand dollars, payable to the state of North Carolina, conditioned faithfully to perform the du ties of his office and obey all lawful orders of the superior or other courts touching said guardianship of all wards, money or estate that may come into his hands.

Code, s. 1557; 1874-5, c. 221, s. 2.

322. Public guardian's bond enlarged. Whenever the aggregate value of the real and personal estate belonging to his several wards shall exceed one-half the bond herein required the clerk of the superior court shall require him to enlarge his bond in amount so as to cover at least double the aggregate amount under his control as guardian.

Code, s. 1558; 1874-5, c. 221, s. 3.

323. Guardians to give bond; condition. Every guardian of an estate, before letters of appointment are issued to him, must give a bond payable to the state, with two or more sufficient sureties, to be acknowledged before and approved by the clerk of the superior court, and to be jointly and severally bound. The penalty in such bond must be double, at least, the value of all personal property, and the rents and profits issuing from the real estate of the infant; which value is to be ascertained by the clerk of the superior court by the examination, on oath, of the applicant for guardianship, or of any other person. The bond must be conditioned that such guardian shall faithfully execute the trust reposed in him as such,

and obey all lawful orders of the clerk or judge, touching the guardianship of the estate committed to him: Provided, if on application by the guardian by petition the court or judge shall decree a sale for any of the causes set forth in section one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight of the property of such infant, idiot, lunatic or insane person, before such sale be confirmed, the guardian shall be required to file a bond as now required in double the amount of the real property so sold.

Code, s. 1574; R. C., c. 54, s. 5; 1762, c. 69, s. 7; 1825, c. 1285, s. 2; 1833, c. 17; 1868-9, c. 201, s. 11; 1874-5, c. 214. See sections 1777 to 1785 both inclusive. Clerk's failure to require sufficient, renders him liable: Howerton v. Sexton, 104-75; Topping v. Windley, 99-4.

THE BOND ITSELF. Where penalty was left blank but afterwards filled out by person intrusted with bond to deliver, and clerk without notice of defect, paid over fund, held sureties liable: Rollins v. Ebbs, 138140; but see same case in 137-355. Bond only guarantees good faith, ordinary care and reasonable diligence: Smith v. Patton, 131-397; Moore v. Eure, 101-11; Atkinson v. Whitehead, 66-296. The giving of bond is not essential to validity of appointment: Howerton v. Sexton, 104-75 and cases therein cited. Guardians' bonds are cumulative: Jones v. Blanton, 41-115; Bell v. Jasper, 37-597; Jones v. Hays, 38-502.

LIABILITY ON BOND. Breaches of bond specified in dissenting opinion in Self v. Shugart, 135-191. For general disregard of duty in not sending ward to school but allowing him to waste large estate, even though on coming of age ward signs release to him of all claims: Boyett v. Hurst, 54-166. For failing to account for money received: Topping v. Windley, 99-4; Humble v. Mebane, 89-410; Rollins v. Ebbs, 138-140-for moneys he should have collected: Loftin v. Cobb, 126-58; Harris v. Harrison, 78-202. Not liable for leaving money in executor's hands to defend suit against ward's property; Matthews v. Downs, 54-333-nor for allowing ward to marry under age "in disparagement:" Shutt v. Carloss, 36-232. Not liable for money stolen from him where diligence used to recover: Atkinson v. Whitehead, 66-295. Not liable for failure to sue to recover land: Cross v. Craven, 120-331-but is, for land sold for taxes: Ibid. Not liable on bond for note signed by him for board and tuition of ward: McKinnon v. McKinnon, 81-201. Where sureties deny liability because penalty blank not filled when they sign: Rollins v. Ebbs, 138-140because they were told others would also sign: Barnes v. Lewis, 73-138.

ACTIONS ON BOND. Should be brought in name of state for benefit of plaintiff: Norman v. Walker, 101-24; Carmichael v. Moore, 88-29; Williams v. McNair, 98-332; Dorsey v. R. R., 91-201; Jones v. McKinnon, 87294; McKinnon v. McKinnon, 81-201; but see Norman v. Dunbar, 53-317. Reference can not be had until plea in bar is decided: Humble v. Mebane, 89-410. Account of guardian as evidence: Loftin v. Cobb, 126-58. Ward's right of action against guardian accrues upon his arriving at 21: Self v. Shugart, 135.188. How judgment rendered on bond: Anthony v. Estes, 101-541. Where ward can sue several, he may elect: Loftin v. Cobb, 12658. Surety on bond competent witness as to insolvency of bond if prin

cipal is dead: Topping v. Windley, 99-4. Where one guardian sues another in another state: Horton v. Horton, 39-54. Surety claiming he was deceived in signing by statement that another would sign whose name was in bond, evidence not admissible: Barnes v. Lewis, 73-138. Ex parte settlement as evidence: Luton v. Wilcox, 83-20; Turner v. Turner, 104-566. Surety can not deny that guardian properly received funds when he received them as guardian: Topping v. Windley, 99-4. Creditor can not sue: McKinnon v. McKinnon, 81-201. For statute of limitations barring action see section 393.

324. Guardian to renew bond every three years. Every guardian shall renew his bond before the clerk of the superior court every three years during the continuance of the guardianship.

Code, s. 1581. Clerk liable if he fails to require renewals: Topping v. Windley, 99-4; Howerton v. Sexton, 104-75.

CHAPTER 10.

BOUNDARIES.

325. May be established by special proceeding. The owner of land, any of whose boundary lines are in dispute, may establish any of such lines by special proceedings in the superior court of the county in which the land or any part thereof is situated.

1893, c. 22. For annotations see next section.

326. Procedure for establishing. The owner shall file his petition under oath stating therein facts sufficient to constitute the location of such line as claimed by him and making defendants all adjoining owners whose interest may be affected by the location of said line. The clerk shall thereupon issue summons to the defendants as in other cases of special proceedings. If the defendants fail to answer, judgment shall be given establishing the line according to petition. If the answer deny the location set out in the petition, the clerk shall issue an order to the county surveyor or, if cause shown, to any competent surveyor to survey said line or lines according to the contention of both parties, and make report of the same with a map at a time to be fixed by the clerk, not more than thirty days from date of order; to which time the cause shall be continued. The cause shall then be heard by the clerk upon the location of said line or lines and judgment given determining the location thereof: Provided, that either party may within ten days after such determination by the clerk serve notice of appeal from the ruling of the clerk determining the said location. When notice of appeal is served it shall be the duty of the clerk to transmit the issues raised before him to the next term of the superior court of the county for trial by a jury, when the ques

tion shall be heard de novo. When final judgment is given in this proceeding the court shall issue an order to the said surveyor to run and mark said line or lines as determined in the judgment. The surveyor shall make report including a map of the line as determined, which shall be filed with the judgment roll in the cause and entered with the judgment on the special proceedings docket. The procedure under this chapter, the jurisdiction of the court, and the right of appeal shall, in all respects, be the same as in special proceedings except as herein modified. The occupation of land shall constitute sufficient ownership for the purposes of this chapter.

1893, c. 22; 1903, c. 21. For additional remedy when records are burned, see section 328. This processioning act is similar to the "writ of perambulation' at common law in some respects: Green v. Williams, 144-63. Purpose of passage of statute: Stanaland v. Rabon, 140-202. Supersedes mode of processioning under Chap. 48 of the Code: Williams v. Hughes, 124-3; Basnight v. Mèekins, 121-23-and must be strictly followed in all material respects: Forney v. Williamson, 98-329. Where there is a real dispute as to boundary, processioning is a matter of right: Green v. Williams, 144-60. Where title to a tract of land has been settled in one action the losing party can not reopen the question by a proceeding to have the land processioned: Holley v. Holley, 96-229.

EVIDENCE. Possession is sufficient evidence of ownership under this proceeding: Williams v. Hughes, 124-3. Possession defined under this chapter: Basnight v. Meekins, 121-25. Plaintiff stopping his line at end of distance, when call is for natural object or line beyond, must show what: Hill v. Dalton, 140-9. Where natural object can not be found or place where it was located, course and distance prevails: Echerd v. Johnson, 126-409; Redmon v. Stepp, 100-212. Lines of senior grant, when controlling object, can not be established by lines of junior grant: Hill v. Dalton, 140-9, also 136-339; Sasser v. Herring, 14-340; Euliss v. McAdams, 108-507. Parol evidence to remove latent ambiguities as to boundaries: Lewis v. Roper Lumber Co., 113-57; Wynne v. Alexander, 29-237; Bullard v Barksdale, 33-461; Hurley v. Morgan, 18-425; Reed v. Schenck, 13-415; Loften v. Heath, 3-347; Bustin v. Christie, 3-99; Archibald v. Davis, 50-322; Waters v. Simmons, 5254; Slade v. Green, 9-218. Declarations of deceased persons to locate boundaries, see Hill v. Dalton, 140-9; Yow v. Hamilton, 136-357; Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117-15; Bethea v. Byrd, 95-311; Smith v. Headrick, 93-210; Mason v. McCormick, 85-226; Huffman v. Walker, 83-411; Caldwell v. Neely, 81114; Hedrick v. Gabble, 63-48; Toole v. Peterson, 31-180; Daney v. Sugg, 19-515; Hartzog v. Hubbard, 19-241; Sasser v. Herring, 14-340; Gervin v. Meredith, 4-439; Harris v. Powell, 3-349. Cases where it is given in testimony that lines were marked at time of survey when land was purchased in such a manner as to estop parties from setting up other boundaries: Fincannon v. Sudderth, 144-587; Elliott v. Jefferson, 133-207. To establish lost corners: Caraway v. Chancy, 51-361; Addington v. Jones, 52-582; Topping v. Sadler, 50-357; Safret v. Hartman, 50-185; McNeill v. Massey, 10-91; Cherry v. Slade, 7-82; Den v. Green, 9-218. General reputation as

evidence see Echerd v. Johnson, 126-409; Mendenhall v. Cassells, 20-43. PROCEDURE. Court decides what are the boundaries and the jury finds where they are: .Echerd v. Johnson, 126-409. Burden of proof is upon plaintiff to locate line: Green v. Williams, 144-60; Woody v. Foun tain, 143-66; Hill v. Dalton, 140-9; 136-339; Echerd v. Johnson, 126-409. An affidavit filed by defendant denying plaintiff's allegations treated as an answer: Scott v. Kellum, 117-664. Injunction not granted in this proceeding, no substantive relief being afforded by it: Wilson v. Alleghany Co., 124-7-but this may not be so since the passage of section 717. Title to property is not in issue where answer does not deny the boundary set out or denies only the boundary: Woody v. Fountain, 143-68-but where, since the passage of the act, now section 717, the defendant denies plaintiff's title, an issue as to the title should be framed by the clerk and the cause transferred to the civil issue docket for trial in the superior court, Woody v. Fountain, 143-66; Davis v. Wall, 142-452; Stanaland v. Rabon, 140-202; Smith v. Johnson, 137-43; Parker v. Taylor, 133-104-the proceeding being converted into an action to quiet title with all the rules governing same, Woody v. Fountain, 143-71-or into an action of ejectment, Davis v. Wall, 142-452; Parker v. Taylor, 133-104. Where parties are both in possession, claiming to own their respective tracts, and the pleadings raise the issue as to dividing line, it is error to dismiss the proceeding and to try it as an action of ejectment simply because question of title incidentally arises: Green v. Williams, 144-60. Judgment of cler, where defendant raises no issue of title; effect: Parker v. Taylor, 133-103; Williams v. Hughes, 124-3; Midgett v. Midgett, 129-21. This proceeding no bar to action of ejectment: Vandyke v. Farris, 126-744. Report of processioners: Roberts v. Dickey, 110-67; Euliss v. McAdams, 101-391-under prior law, Hoyle v. Wilson, 29-466; Matthews v. Matthews, 26-155; Carpenter v. Whitworth, 25-204; Cansler v. Hoke, 14-268; Wilson v. Shufford, 7-504. Setting aside report of processioners: Martin v. Flippin, 101-452. The survey, how made: Norwood v. Crawford, 114-513; Porter v. Durham, 90-55. Cases construing prior laws: Forney v. Williamson, 98-329; Holley v. Holley, 96-229; Oakley v. Anderson, 93-109; Porter v. Durham, 90-57; Hoyle v. Wilson, 29-466; Matthews v. Matthews, 26-155; Carpenter v. Whitworth, 25-204; Cansler v. Hoke, 14-268; Willson v. Shufford, 7-504.

CHAPTER 11.

BURNT AND LOST RECORDS.

327. Certified copies of destroyed records received in evidence. Whenever the office of any registry shall have been, or may be destroyed by fire or other accident, and the records and other papers thereof be burnt or destroyed, the copies of all such proceedings, instruments and papers as are of record or registry, certified by the proper officer, though without the seal of office, shall be received in evidence whenever the original or duly certi