Harrison v. Hahn
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 95 N.C. 28 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES C. HARRISON and WIFE MARY E. v. A. HAHN et al. |
This was a CIVIL ACTION to recover land, tried before Shipp, Judge, at the Special February Term, 1885, of CRAVEN Superior Court.
The plaintiffs claimed under a levy, sale and conveyance by the Tax Collector of the city of Newbern, and offered in evidence the following entry on the tax book for the year 1879: “E. D. Jones, Pollock and Spring Sts., and part lot L. Nash. Tax and costs $6.13.”
They also offered the following advertisement, duly published: “City Tax Collector's office, Newbern, N. C.
Pursuant to the advertisement, the sale was made and a certificate given to the purchaser, the plaintiff Mary E., in these words:
RECEIVED, April 16, 1880, of Mary E. Harrison the sum of six 13/100 dollars, of which amount_______dollars is tax for fire department of the City of Newbern, and________dollars is tax for the current expenses of the City of Newbern,________dollars is for the special mandamus tax for the City of Newbern, and one 95/100 dollars is cost incurred in the suit of W. G. Singleton, City Tax Collector, against E. D. Jones. Execution for taxes, 1879.
By virtue of the above mentioned execution issued from the Superior Court of Craven county on the 5th day of March, 1880, the said W. G. Singleton, City Tax Collector as aforesaid, did levy upon a certain piece or parcels of lands, situated in the City of Newbern, N. C., on Pollock and Spring streets, and part Lafayette Nash Lot, and numbered on the chart of the City of Newbern________, listed by E. D. Jones, to satisfy the taxes due thereon for the year 1879, and did proceed to sell the same at the Court House door of Craven county, on Monday, the 5th day of April, 1880, after due advertisement according to law, whereupon Mary E. Harrison became the purchaser, at the sum of six 13/100 Dollars, of 9/10 interest in said lots.
W. G. SINGLETON,
City Tax Collector.
Probated, April 27th, 1880.
Registered, May 3, 1880.
On April 22, 1882, the Tax Collector executed a deed to the said Mary E., which contains these recitals:
"Whereas, the city taxes assessed for the year A. D. 1879, on the following lands and tenements in the City of Newbern aforesaid, to wit: Parts of lots on corner of Pollock and Spring streets and part Lafayette Nash or back lot, listed by E. D. Jones on the tax book of the City of Newbern for the year 1879, remaining unpaid, after the time limited by law, Wm. G. Singleton, the then Tax Collector for said city, levied on said lands or lots, and returned a list of his levies to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Craven county; and the said Tax Collector, after advertising and giving notice according to law, sold said lands or lots to pay said taxes and costs, at public auction at the Court House in Newbern, on the 5th day of April, A. D. 1880, when and where Mary E. Harrison, party of the second part, became the purchaser of nine-tenths (9/10) interest in said lots, at and for the sum of six and 13/100 dollars, and has paid the sum of money; and the owner of said lands or lots having failed to redeem the same,” &c.
The deed then proceeds for the consideration of $6.13, the taxes and costs, to convey to the purchaser, in words to pass the fee, “an undivided nine-tenths interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina Self Help Corporation v. Brinkley
...when it does furnish, means of identifying the land intended to be conveyed. Thompson on Real Property, Vol. 4, Sec. 3074; Harrison v. Hahn, 95 N.C. 28, Cathey v. Lbr. Co., supra, Bissette v. Strickland, 191 N.C. 260, 131 S.E. 655. Where the language used is patently ambiguous, parol eviden......
-
Katz v. Daughtrey
...acres. This is too vague and indefinite to admit of parol evidence to fit the description to the thing intended to be conveyed. Harrison v. Hahn, 95 N. C. 28. Section 992 of the Consolidated Statutes, which deals with indefinite descriptions, applies only to descriptions which are capable o......
-
Gilbert v. Wright
... ... latter a question of identity. Institute v. Norwood, ... 45 N.C. 65; Capps v. Holt, 58 N.C. 153; Harrison ... v. Hahn, 95 N.C. 28. Several cases illustrating ... [141 S.E. 579.] ... the distinction and stating the principle upon which it rests ... ...
-
Hemphill v. Annis
...repeatedly approved, notably by Chief Justices Pearson and Smith in the cases of McCormick v. Monroe, 1 Jones (N. C.) 16, and Harrison v. Hahn, 95 N. C. 28. But in later years disagreements have from time to time grown out of differences of opinion as to whether the particular words employe......