Clark v. . Moore

35 S.E. 125, 126 N.C. 1, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 175
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 20, 1900·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Furches, J.

This is an action for tbe possession of land, and, -while other matters were presented and discussed, tbe principal questions involved were, whether tbe description in plaintiff’s deed was sufficient to locate or authorize a location of tbe land in dispute, and whether the land bad been located. Tbe record is voluminous and is not printed, and, while it may be plain to those acquainted with it, it has given us much labor to understand it, and we hope we do: And, understanding it as we do, it presents to our minds but two real questions, and upon these we hold with the plaintiff.

Both plaintiff and defendants claim title under Harmon Eason and wife. So it is not necessary to go further back, in tracing title, tiran to said Eason, the common source.

Tbe plaintiff’s chain commences by deed from Eason and

*4 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

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

Clark v. . Moore, 35 S.E. 125, 126 N.C. 1, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 175 (N.C. 1900).

35 S.E. 125 (Clark v. . Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James E. Groppi v. Jack Leslie, Sheriff of Dane County
436 F.2d 331 (Seventh Circuit, 1971)
Brown v. Hodges
65 S.E.2d 144 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Town of Belhaven v. Hodges
39 S.E.2d 366 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
State v. Swanson Theater Circuit
202 P. 544 (Utah Supreme Court, 1921)
Jarvis v. . Swain
91 S.E. 358 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Farris v. . R. R.
66 S.E. 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Farris v. Southern Railway Co.
66 S.E. 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Strauss v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
54 L.R.A. 605 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)