Board of Commissioners v. Rowland
This text of 16 S.E.2d 401 (Board of Commissioners v. Rowland) 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.
Opinion
The description involved appears to be sufficiently definite to admit of parol evidence for the purpose of identification. See Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley, 215 N. C., 615, 2 S. E. (2d), 889, and cases cited. Compare Johnston County v. Stewart, 217 N. C., 334, 7 S. E. (2d), 708. But such evidence is absent from the agreed case. Hence, unaided in that respect, the description of itself is insufficient to identify the land.
The statute, C. S., 8037, as rewritten in section 4 of chapter 221, Public Laws 1927, in effect when- the tax foreclosure suit in question was pending, requires that, in the published notice, a description of the real estate, which is in fact and in law sufficient, shall be set out.
Plaintiff contends, however, that the question here is controlled by the opinion in Craven County v. Parker, 194 N. C., 561, 140 S. E., 155. There, the description “Richard Parker, 250 acres, Washington Road, No. One Township,” was accompanied by the admission that “this is the only land owned by Richard Parker in Craven County.” This distinguishes it from the one at bar.
*26 In view of the decision here reached, other points raised are not considered on this appeal..
The judgment below is
Beversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 S.E.2d 401, 220 N.C. 24, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-commissioners-v-rowland-nc-1941.