Oxford v. White

• Decision Date: 31 October 1886
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: W. C. OXFORD v. JAMES A. WHITE.

95 N.C. 525

W. C. OXFORD

v.JAMES A. WHITE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October Term, 1886.

CIVIL ACTION, tried before Avery, Judge, at June Term, 1886, of ALEXANDER Superior Court, upon complaint and demurrer.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the land described in the complaint, the parts of which, material to be set forth here, are as follows:

The plaintiffs allege:

1. That they are owners in fee simple, and entitled to the immediate possession of the following tract of land in Alexander county, to-wit: one half of a three hundred acre tract granted by the State to Henry Reid in 1872--that is to say, the one-half of said tract, to-wit: one hundred and fifty acres, embracing the home place of the late Samuel Reid, and lying on the north side or end of the aforesaid grant, said grant being bounded as follows: a tract of three hundred acres, lying on the north fork of Middle Little River, beginning on three black oaks and runs south 20° east 120 poles to the river, crossing the same course 64 poles to a post oak along Henry and James Reid's line, thence 51 poles east to a post oak, thence south 80 poles to the river, crossing the same 6 poles to a post oak, thence west 237 poles to a post oak, thence north 261 poles to a stake, thence east 127 poles to the beginning.

2. That said one hundred and fifty acres claimed by plaintiffs is embraced as nearly as can now be stated, by beginning at the three black oaks of the old grant as aforesaid, and running 127 poles west to a stake, thence southward, in slightly diverging lines from the aforesaid black oak and stakes to points along the respective lines where a line east and west parallel with the south (east and west line) of the old grant aforesaid--shall contain within the lines and distances aforesaid one hundred and fifty acres.

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,?? the plaintiff having declared in the second section of the complaint for the recovery of a tract of land, and the description therein set forth being void for uncertainty, and such as would render a conveyance containing it void.

The Court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff appealed.

Mr. M. L. McCorkle, for the plaintiff .

No counsel, for the defendant .

MERRIMON, J.

It must be conceded that the description of the land in the complaint is very indefinite and uncertain in its terms, but we think it may be rendered certain by an accurate survey, and that ...