Webb v. Battle

• Decision Date: 17 February 1926
• Docket Number: 54.
• Parties: WEBB ET AL. v. BATTLE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

131 S.E. 627

191 N.C. 220

WEBB ET AL. v. BATTLE.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 17, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Nash County; Cranmer, Judge.

Action by James B. Webb and another against Mourning Battle to recover land. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. New trial.

If the description in a deed be so vague or contradictory that it cannot be ascertained what thing is meant, the deed is void.

The complaint consists of the usual allegations in an action to recover land. The answer joins issue and sets up the defense of possession for 30 years under known and visible lines and boundaries and for 21 years and for 7 years under color of title. Verdict:

(1) Are the plaintiffs the owners of and entitled to the possession of the land described in the complaint? Answer: No.

(2) Does the defendant unlawfully withhold possession of said land? Answer: _____

(Image Omitted)

Battle & Winslow, of Rocky Mount, for appellants.

ADAMS J.

The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover the tract represented on the plat by the letters A B X A. The defendant claims to be the owner of the lot designated by the letters Y B A X Y but the plaintiffs say that her boundaries are limited by Y B X Y. On the trial the plaintiffs offered record evidence tending to show that in 1855 William S. Battle was the owner of a large tract of land including the locus in quo; that in 1865 he divided the tract into two parcels, conveying one part to T. H. Griffin and the other to Willie B. Ricks; that by mesne conveyances the plaintiffs acquired title under Griffin to A B X A and the defendant under Ricks to Y B X Y. After putting in evidence their own chain of title, the plaintiffs, for the purpose of showing a common source introduced the deeds under which the defendant claims. The description in the defendant's deed is as follows:

"Adjoining the land of Will Harris and Jones Smith and others, bounded as follows: Being in the section of Rocky Mount known as Little Raleigh, and beginning at a stake in the southern line of Grace street, Jones Smith corner; thence in a northern direction with the western line of Grace street, 64 feet to a stake, Will Harris corner; thence along Will Harris' line 185 feet, more or less, to Garvey and Jones Smith corner; thence with Jones Smith's northern line 120 feet, more or less, to the beginning, and being all of the land formerly owned by Calvin Battle, between the northern line of Jones Smith and the southern line of Will Harris. See deed from Jones Smith and wife to John Battle, Book 154, p. 228, Nash County Registry."

The defendant contends that this description embraces Y B A X Y and takes in the disputed land; that the deeds under which she claims are color of title; that she and her predecessors held possession under known and visible lines and boundaries and under colorable title for 7 years before the institution of the action; and that the plaintiffs are thereby barred. C. S. § 428. On the other hand, the plaintiffs say that the defendant's deed does not include A B X A and that the defendant could not have had color of title to this lot. These inconsistent positions require an interpretation of the defendant's deed. In Quelch v. Futch, 90 S.E. 259, 172 N.C. 316, it is said:

"We have in the deed in question a description by metes and bounds in which the land in controversy is not conveyed, and also a description which refers to another deed duly recorded by book and page, which gives a definite description covering the land in controversy. It must be admitted that if the first or specific description entirely is eliminated from the deed, according to the evidence, the second or general description is sufficient, and covers the land described in the complaint. It matters not that the last description follows the warranty. The whole deed must be so construed as to give effect to the plain intent of the grantor, and the parts of the deed will be transposed if necessary. Triplett v. Williams, 63 S.E. 79, 149 N.C. 394, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514; 13 Cyc. 627. The entire description in a deed should be considered in determining the identity of the land conveyed. Clauses inserted in a deed should be regarded as inserted for a purpose, and should be given a meaning that would aid the description. Every part of a deed ought, if possible, take effect, and every word to operate. A reference to another deed may control a particular description, for the deed referred to for purposes of description becomes a part of the deed that calls for it. 13 Cyc. 632; Brown v. Ricaud [[Rickard, 12 S.E. 570] 107 N.C. 639; Everett [Everitt] v. Thomas, 23 N.C. 252."

In the defendant's deed the description by metes and bounds is followed by the phrase:

"Being all the land formerly owned by Calvin Battle, between the northern line of Jones Smith and the southern line of Will Harris."

If as contended by the plaintiffs, Calvin Battle, before executing his deed to Jones Smith (August 4, 1906), conveyed all the land devised to him by his father, except Y B X Y, and the northern boundary of the Calvin Battle line is X B, the words "between the northern line of Jones Smith and the southern line of Will Harris" apparently would include no land north of X B. If this be admitted or established, the next question will be whether the remaining description extends the defendant's northern line to A B. It will be observed that two "calls" in the deed are inconsistent: "Thence along Will Harris line" and "to Garvey and Jones Smith corner." A line from B along the Harris line will not reach the Garvey and Jones Smith corner; a line from B to this corner will not run with the Harris line. If the boundaries in the defendant's deed, by their terms, exclude the locus in quo, the mistaken call for the Harris line would not extend them. Ferguson v. Fibre Co., 110 S.E. 220, 182 N.C. 731. The plaintiffs insist that the defendant's lot is inclosed by three lines, and is therefore triangular. As to the line Y B there is...