Vickers v. Henry

• Decision Date: 26 April 1892
• Citation: 15 S.E. 115,110 N.C. 371
• Parties: VICKERS v. HENRY et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

15 S.E. 115

110 N.C. 371

VICKERS v. HENRY et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 26, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Jackson county; JAMES H. MERRIMON Judge.

Action by Edward Vickers against James Henry and Mary Henry to recover possession of land. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A title bond for "one hundred acres of land, to include the Wm Estice improvement, and to lap on a survey made Joseph Arrington," is void for uncertainty.

J. F Ray, for appellants.

T. F Davidson, for appellee.

MERRIMON C.J.

It appears from the case stated on appeal that the plaintiff on the trial showed title out of the state, color of title of his ancestor and himself, and continuance in actual possession, with claim of the land specified in the complaint, for more than seven years next after the 26th day of May, 1870; that the defendants, husband and wife, took possession of part of this land about 1880, and had such possession at and ever since the time this action began. Thus, plainly, the plaintiff showed title in himself. The defendants put in evidence what purported to be a bond for title for the same land, made to a former deceased husband of the feme defendant, which describes the land to which it has reference in these words: "One hundred acres of land, to include the Wm. Estice improvement, and to lap on a survey made Joseph Arrington; the said Estice having lost or misplaced said bond, and consents to this trade, and agrees for his contract and bond to be revoked, and the deed to be made as soon as the above-named Arrington shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid the full and interest sum of eighty-nine dollars and sixty cents," etc. It did not appear that any part of the purchase money thus agreed to be paid ever was paid, but the feme defendant contended that she was entitled to dower as widow of her former husband in said land, and that the same was duly assigned to her. It did not sufficiently appear that dower was allotted to the feme defendant; but, if this were otherwise, neither the plaintiff, nor those under whom he claims, had notice of, nor were they parties to, the dower proceeding, and are not affected by the orders and decrees that may have been made therein. Moreover, the bond for title under which the defendants claim was clearly void for uncertainty in the description of the land which it purports to embrace. It designates no particular land, nor...