Boddie v. Bond
| Decision Date | 06 March 1912 |
| Citation | 73 S.E. 988,158 N.C. 204 |
| Parties | BODDIE v. BOND. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Warren County; Justice, Judge.
Action by Viola Boddie against V. N. Bond. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Description of land in will held sufficient to pass title and to permit reception of parol evidence to fit description of land intended.
See also, 154 N.C. 359, 70 S.E. 824.
T. T Hicks and J. M. Picot, for appellant.
T. M. Pittman, S. G. Daniel, and J. H. Kerr, for appellee.
This case was before the court on a former appeal from a ruling of the superior court judge that plaintiff was barred of recovery by reason of an equitable estoppel arising on the facts then presented. The court held there was error (see 154 N.C. 359, 70 S.E. 824), and, this opinion having been certified down, there was recovery by plaintiff and the case is now here on appeal of defendants.
On the present trial, it was agreed that both parties claimed under Jno. W. Heptinstall, deceased, and plaintiff's legal title was made to rest on a devise in his last will and testament to his wife, Cornelia, and by devise of Cornelia to plaintiff. The descriptive words of the devise to Cornelia are as follows: "I give my wife, Cornelia, the house where we now live, with all the outhouses and premises embracing the peach and apple orchard," etc. Under our authorities this description is sufficiently definite to pass title to the property, and permit the reception of parol evidence to fit the description to the land intended. Ward v. Gay, 137 N.C. 397, 49 S.E. 884; Blow v. Vaughan, 105 N.C. 198, 10 S.E. 891. And, the jury having found that the locus in quo is included within the terms of the devise to plaintiff, the question is again presented as to the existence of an equitable estoppel.
On that position we find nothing in the present record which materially differs from the case as formerly presented, and for the reasons so clearly stated in the opinion by Associate Justice Walker the judgment in favor of plaintiff must be sustained. On the present trial, as heretofore, it was made to appear that plaintiff, the devises under the will of Jno. W. Heptinstall and subsequently of Cornelda, his wife, on the 24th day of March, 1911, sold and conveyed to a Mrs. Miles wife of T. J. Miles, a portion of the land, being under the impression that it was all she owned in that locality or under the devise, and in the deed described the same on one side as bordering on the "line of V. N. Bond, defendant." The plaintiff, who resided in Greensboro, N. C., having come to Littleton on the day her deed bears date for the purpose of attending a sale of her aunt's personal property, the witness T. J. Miles, husband of the purchaser of plaintiff's lot, determined to have the dividing line between the two lots determined upon, defendant contending that the true dividing line ran straight back from the Presbyterian church lot, and T. J. Miles, the husband of the purchaser, contending that a slight deflection should be made; and a dividing line was agreed upon between T. J. Miles, the witness, and the defendant. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial