The jury found the old road and Meherrin Eiver to be the western and southern boundaries of the plaintiffs’ land, and the defendants contend that the true location of these boundaries is as represented on the plat by the lines A, B, C, X. The controversy seems to have arisen out of an alleged inconsistency in certain of the deeds that were offered in evidence. In the deed from Winborne to Vann and Camp & Co., dated.day of February, 1885, the land conveyed is described as bounded on the south and southeast by the Meherrin Eiver, the public road, and the Hill’s Ferry Wharf property, the boundary of the wharf property being also set out. The land conveyed to J. E. Carter is bounded on the west by the road leading from Como to Hill’s Ferry, etc., it being a part of the Cowper land, conveyed to the grantors by B. B. Winborne. The defendants contend that this deed automatically excepts the wharf property as described in B. B. Winborne’s exception. Hutton v. Cook, 173 N. C., 496. But if this be granted, it does *254 not necessarily follow that tbe location of tbe eastern boundary of tbis property is as contended by tbe defendants; tbis was a question for tbe jury to determine upon all tbe evidence.

It is also insisted by tbe defendants that tbe old road cannot be tbe dividing line, even if tbe Winborne exception be ignored, for tbe reason tbat tbe deed to Carter must be construed in reference to tbe date it bears, and tbat tbe road therein called for is tbe new road, wbicb lies a few yards east of tbe old road. Tbe road is described as “leading from Como to Hill’s Ferry,” but it is not described as a “new road” or an “old road,” and its location was essentially a matter of fact, not of law. We must therefore overrule all tbe exceptions based upon tbe assumption tbat in no view of tbe evidence can tbe old road be tbe dividing line. Tbe defense was based primarily upon tbis contention.

Tbe motion to nonsuit tbe plaintiffs was properly denied, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant tbe verdict. Indeed, practically tbe entire controversy was reduced to questions of fact, wbicb were clearly presented to tbe jury upon competent evidence. We have examined all tbe exceptions, some of wbicb were merely formal, and have found none tbat call for elaborate' discussion. We find

No error.