Fulcher v. Fulcher

• Decision Date: 01 March 1898
• Parties: FULCHER v. FULCHER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

29 S.E. 91

122 N.C. 101

FULCHER v. FULCHER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 1, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Craven county; Brown, Judge.

Action by Albert Fulcher against M. A. Fulcher to recover possession of certain land. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The description on a tax list made under the direction of the taxpayer was: "Tax list in No. 2 township, C. county for the year 1893." Held sufficient, as between said taxpayer and a purchaser of his land at tax sale, where it was the only land owned by the former in the township.

Simmons Pou & Ward and shepherd & Busbee, for appellee.

FAIRCLOTH C.J.

The plaintiff claims title under a sheriff's deed, with a full description of the land, called a "tax title." From the agreed facts and the argument, we find only one question presented, to wit, the sufficiency of the description on the tax list, which was made under direction of the defendant. The description is: "Tax list in No. 2 township, Craven county, for the year 1893." This was the only land owned by M. A. Fulcher in that township. "The designation of the land is sufficient if it affords the means of identification, and does not positively mislead the owner." Cooley, Tax'n, 407. This would seem to meet the exception, as the defendant cannot be heard to say that he misled himself. In Phillips v. Hooker, 62 N.C. 193, the memorandum was: "To make a deed for her house and lot north of Kinston," in Lenoir county. "It being admitted that she owned but one house and lot in the county," the description was held sufficient to be aided by parol proof. In Spivey v. Grant, 96 N.C 214, the description was "one horse," and the mortgagor had only one horse. Held, the title passed. In Lupton v. Lupton, 117 N.C. 30, 23 S.E. 184, the assignment was, "one-half of boat," and it was proved that the husband had only one boat. Held sufficient to pass title by the aid of parol evidence. Until recently, much property in the state escaped its share of the burden of taxation by reason of technicalities, the mode of listing irregularity in sales, etc. Act 1887, c. 137, which has in substance been followed ever since, wiped out such refinements, and requires the contestant, or those under whom he claims, in order to defeat the purchaser's title, to prove that they were the owners at the time of the sale, or that the property was not subject to taxation for that year or that the...