Raleigh Storage Co. v. Bunn

135 S.E. 31, 192 N.C. 328, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 291

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 20, 1926
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

On the hearing, the title offered was properly made to depend on whether a deed given by the Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railway Company to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, 25 July, 1912, for all its lines of railroad, rights of way, etc., ratified by Act of Assembly, 1913, was sufficient to convey the land in question situate, as it was, immediately adjacent to the railroad, tracks of the Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railway Company in the city of Raleigh, with a warehouse and sidetracks located thereon and used at the time by said company for railroad purposes, under the following description in said deed, which comes after the particular description of lines of railroad and various properties situate in a number of counties of the State, to wit: “Also all lands, terminals, yards, . . . sidetracks, . . . warehouses . . . and all other property, real and personal, rights and things of every kind and description which appertain to any or all of the above described lines of road.”

It is conceded by both sides, plaintiff and defendants, that if the locus in quo — admittedly owned by the Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railway at the time — passed under this conveyance, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is correct and ought to be affirmed; otherwise not.

The Norfolk Southern Railroad Company took immediate possession of all the property owned by the Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railway Company at the time of the execution of the deed above mentioned, including the locus in quo, and the same was used continuously as an appurtenant to said line of railroad until the conveyance of the locus in quo to E. C. Duncan in 1919.

Tbe intention to convey tbe property in question by tbe deed now under consideration is quite clear — indeed frankly conceded by tbe defendants — and we tbink tbe language used is sufficient for tbe purpose. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Moffitt, 94 Mo., 59; Wise v. Wheeler, 28 N. C., 196.

Affirmed.