Hinchey v. . Nichols .

72 N.C. 66
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 72 N.C. 66 (Hinchey v. . Nichols .) 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
Hinchey v. . Nichols ., 72 N.C. 66 (N.C. 1875).

Opinion

PeaesoN, C. J.

The plaintiff claims a tract of land described as follows, in the grant (1789) and mesne conveyances : “ A tract of land containing one hundred and seventy-three acres, lying and being in our county of Wilkes, on a big branch of Luke Lee’s creek, beginning at or near the path that crosses the said branch that goes from Crane’s to Sutton’s, on a stake, running west twenty-eight chains and fifty links to a white oak in Miller’s line,” and so all around calling for stakes at every corner.

“A big branch of Luke Lee’s creek,” snpposes several big brandies. Which big branch; is left indefinite. If an indefinite description will admit of comparison, the next description, “ a stake at or near the path, that crosses the said branch, that goes from Crane’s to Sutton’s,” is more indefinite. We are not told on which side of the branch this stake or point was fixed ; nor are we told whether it is ten, fifty, one hundred yards, or any other distance from the branch. So the description is fatally defective, and it cannot be made definite by parol *68 evidence, for that would be to make a beginning corner, and not to find a corner, by fitting the description to the thing, for nothing is described. The cases, Archibald v. Davis, 5 Jones, 322; Mann v. Taylor, 4 Jones, 274, cited by the defendant’s counsel, dispose of the question.

Had “ the white oak in Miller’s line” been identified, the description may have been helped out, and the beginning corner found by nursing the lines, but unfortunately for the plaintiff, neither the white oak or Miller’s line can be found. So that passes for nothing; and we have no description by which the land can be identified, and must come to the conclution that the surveyor made the plat on which the grant issued without any actual survey, and without going into the woods at all to mark any corner, or fix any memorial by which the land can be located. Error.

Pkk Curiam. Venire de novo.

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

Related

Adams v. Severt
252 S.E.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Peterson v. Sucro
101 F.2d 282 (Fourth Circuit, 1939)
Katz v. . Daughtrey
151 S.E. 879 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Broadwell v. Morgan.
55 S.E. 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Barker v. Southern Railway Co.
34 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Holmes v. Sapphire Valley Co.
28 S.E. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Brown v. . House
24 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Blow v. . Vaughan
10 S.E. 891 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Reed v. . Reed
93 N.C. 462 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Dickens v. . Barnes
79 N.C. 490 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 N.C. 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinchey-v-nichols-nc-1875.