Brock v. Porter, 35.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 35.,35. |
| Citation | 16 S.E.2d 410,220 N.C. 28 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BROCK. v. PORTER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Wilson Warlick, Judge.
Action by Marie W. Brock against Ethel Porter on an agreed statement of facts for a determination whether the plaintiff was required to furnish water to only one house erected on defendant's premises or to two. From judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals, assigning error.
Reversed.
Controversy without action heard upon facts agreed, which, in abridgment and summary, follow:
1. Joe W. Brock and C. C. Hale were adjacent landowners in a suburban section of Mount Airy. Brock and wife owned "Lot No. 12 and half of Lot No. 13" in the Brock-Merritt Development, and Hale and wife owned "Lot No. 15 and half of Lot No. 16" in the same development. Brock installed a well on his land for the purpose of supplying his dwelling with water.
2. On September 11, 1929, Brock and wife, by written contract duly executed, agreed to furnish Hale and wife, their heirs and assigns, upon the payment of $1 per month, a perennial water right to the wat ers of his well to be used "for household purposes and none other". The monthly payments were to begin the first month after C. C. Hale and wife "shall have constructed a dwelling-house" on their premises. "It is understood and agreed that the words 'heirs and assigns of the said C. C. Hale and wife Marie Hale' shall include only such heirs or assigns of said parties who occupy the premises described as Lot No. 15 and half of Lot No. 16 and that Joe W. Brock and wife Marie Brock shall be bound to furnish water as hereinabove provided to party or parties occupying said premises and no others."
3. Thereafter, Hale and wife constructed a seven-room dwelling-house on their premises which they later sold to the defendant. Plaintiff furnishes water to this house from her well.
4. Recently the defendant erected on her premises (Lot No. 15 and half of Lot No. 16) a small four-room dwelling to be occupied by her son and his wife.
5. The controversy arises over whether the plaintiff, who is now the sole owner of Lot No. 12 and half of Lot No. 13 is required by the agreement of September 11, 1929, to furnish water for household purposes to the small house erected on defendant's premises.
The trial court being of opinion that under the contract in question the plaintiff was required to furnish water to only one house erected on defendant's premises and not to two, accordingly entered judgment for the plaintiff. From this ruling the defendant appeals, assigning error.
Woltz & Barber, of Mount Airy, for appellant.
A. B. Carter, of Mount Airy, for appellee.
The parties have submitted a written contract for construction. Its terms are not in dispute. What is its effect? This is the question for decision. Patton v. Sinclair Lbr. Co., 179 N.C. 103, 101 S.E. 613; Spragins v. White, 108 N.C. 449, 13 S.E. 171; Festerman v. Parker, 32 N.C. 474, 477; Young v. Jeffreys, 20 N.C. 357.
It will be observed that the parties themselves undertook to spell out their meaning by limiting the agreement to such heirs or assigns "who occupy the premises", and it is provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Elliott
... ... to do the work, and the terms of his agreement are in ... writing. They are clear and speak for themselves. Brock ... v. Porter, 220 N.C. 28, 16 S.E.2d 410. The ascertainment ... of their meaning and effect is for the court, and not for the ... jury. Drake ... ...
-
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Whitfield
...A.L.R. 1127; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E.2d 17. A will is to be given effect according to its obvious intent. Brock v. Porter, 220 N.C. 28, 16 S.E.2d 410. Considering Dr. Whitfield's will from its four corners it is perfectly obvious that he has expressed his intent in language t......
-
Cannon v. Cannon
... ... McCallum v ... McCallum, 167 N.C. 310, 83 S.E. 250. The will is to be ... given effect according to its obvious intent. Brock v ... Porter, 220 N.C. 28, 16 S.E.2d 410. Construction belongs ... only to the domain of ambiguity, or where different ... impressions are ... ...
-
Krites v. Plott
... ... for resorting to the rules of construction. It must be given ... its plain and obvious meaning. Brock v. Porter, 220 ... N.C. 28, 16 S.E.2d 410; American Potato Co. v. Jenette ... Bros., 172 N.C. 1, 89 S.E. 791 ... It is ... ...