Beard v. . Taylor

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Beard v. . Taylor

73 S.E. 213, 157 N.C. 440, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 20, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 213 (Beard v. . Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beard v. . Taylor, 73 S.E. 213, 157 N.C. 440, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 69 (N.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Allekt, J.

The case on appeal does not disclose what evidence was introduced on the trial, nor does it set out or identify the deed referred to, and as the action of the judge is presumed to be correct, we must affirm the judgment.

If, however, the exception is intended to present the correctness of a ruling by the judge that the description under the heading, “Calls of sheriff’s deed for eleven-acre tract,” is void for uncertainty, we would hold that there is no error.

If the description had stopped at the word “homestead,” it would have been sufficient, but the additional clause makes it impossible to say what part of the eight acres is intended to be conveyed.

Cathey v. Lumber Co., 151 N. C., 592, is in point. In that ea.se the grantor attempted to convey 324 acres, part of a tract of land of 724 acres, and it was held that no title passed, the Court saying: “The deed under which defendant claims does not purport to convey the whole of a described tract of land, but only a certain number of acres thereof, to wit, ‘324 acres of land, part of a certain tract of land composed of Nos. 3044, 3097, and 3098, in Graham County.’ The boundaries of the entire tract, from which the 324 acres are to be taken, are set out with exactness, and the entire tract, as stated in the deed, contains 724 acres. The deed furnishes no means by which the 324 acres can be identified and set apart, nor does the instrument refer to something extrinsic to it by which those acres may be located." It is self-evident that a certain part of a whole *443 cannot be set apart unless tile part can be in some way identified. Therefore, where a grantor undertakes to convey a part of a tract of land, his conveyance must itself furnish the means by which the part can be located; otherwise, his deed is void, for it is elementary that every deed of conveyance must set forth a subject-matter, either certain within itself or capable of being made certain by recurrence to something extrinsic to which the deed refers.”

The judgment must be affirmed.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allekt, J.

The case on appeal does not disclose what evidence was introduced on the trial, nor does it set out or identify the deed referred to, and as the action of the judge is presumed to be correct, we must affirm the judgment.

If, however, the exception is intended to present the correctness of a ruling by the judge that the description under the heading, “Calls of sheriff’s deed for eleven-acre tract,” is void for uncertainty, we would hold that there is no error.

If the description had stopped at the word “homestead,” it would have been sufficient, but the additional clause makes it impossible to say what part of the eight acres is intended to be conveyed.

Cathey v. Lumber Co., 151 N. C., 592, is in point. In that ea.se the grantor attempted to convey 324 acres, part of a tract of land of 724 acres, and it was held that no title passed, the Court saying: “The deed under which defendant claims does not purport to convey the whole of a described tract of land, but only a certain number of acres thereof, to wit, ‘324 acres of land, part of a certain tract of land composed of Nos. 3044, 3097, and 3098, in Graham County.’ The boundaries of the entire tract, from which the 324 acres are to be taken, are set out with exactness, and the entire tract, as stated in the deed, contains 724 acres. The deed furnishes no means by which the 324 acres can be identified and set apart, nor does the instrument refer to something extrinsic to it by which those acres may be located." It is self-evident that a certain part of a whole *443 cannot be set apart unless tile part can be in some way identified. Therefore, where a grantor undertakes to convey a part of a tract of land, his conveyance must itself furnish the means by which the part can be located; otherwise, his deed is void, for it is elementary that every deed of conveyance must set forth a subject-matter, either certain within itself or capable of being made certain by recurrence to something extrinsic to which the deed refers.”

The judgment must be affirmed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 213, 157 N.C. 440, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-taylor-nc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack