Warren v. . Short

25 S.E. 704, 119 N.C. 39
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1896·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Avery, J. :

A conveyance of land at common law was deemed, unless a contrary intent was expressed in the deed, to relate to the date of its execution, and hence in construing the Statute of Wills (which contained the words “ having au estate of inheritance”) the courts decided that devises, being a species of conveyance, only land to which the devisor had title at the date of the execution of the instrument, not laud acquired between that time and his death, passed by a general disposition of all of his land. 2 Blk., p. 378. A person may convey the whole mineral interest, or only a particular mineral, or the whole of the timber, or only certain trees designated by dimensions or species, or by .both, and in either case such trees pass as ful *42 fill the description at the time of executing the conveyance. The modification of the common law principle, in so far as it relates to devises, in no way affects its application to deeds of conveyance. Upon this principle, as well as upon the reason of the thing, it was held in Whitted v. Smith, 2 Jones, 36, that an exception in a deed of “all the pine timber that will square one foot” embraced only such timber as had attained the size specified at the time. An exception in a deed of a part of the thing granted must be described with the same certainty as the subject-matter of the conveyance, and hence the rules for ascertaining what is excepted must be the same as those for determining what passes by the deed.

The conveyance contained no language which evinced a purpose to take the instrument out of the general rule. One may convey something that has no potential existence, subject to such restrictions as are imposed by public policy, provided, always, he expresses with sufficient clearness his intent to do so. Williams v. Chapman, 118 N. C., 943; Brown v. Dail, 117 N. C., 41; Loftin v. Hines, 107 N. C., 360. The deed might have been so drawn as to pa«s all trees that would attain the size mentioned within a reasonable, though not for an indefinite period, but the terms of the deed cover none that did not fill the description at its date, and no others passed. Robinson v. Gee, 4 Ired., 186.

For the reasons given the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Warren v. . Short, 25 S.E. 704, 119 N.C. 39 (N.C. 1896).

25 S.E. 704 (Warren v. . Short) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

M. & I. TIMBER CO. v. Hope Silver-Lead Mines, Inc.
428 P.2d 955 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1967)
Doherty v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.
315 P.2d 566 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc. v. Grooms
16 S.E.2d 816 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1941)
Sun Lumber Co. v. Nelson Fuel Co.
106 S.E. 41 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1921)
Gilbert v. Waccamaw Shingle Co.
83 S.E. 337 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Kinston Manufacturing Co. v. Thomas
83 S.E. 174 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Wiltz Veneer Co. v. Ange
80 S.E. 886 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Kelly v. Enterprise Lumber Co.
72 S.E. 957 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Whitfield v. Rowland Lumber Co.
67 S.E. 512 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Isler v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.
60 S.E. 503 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Crawford v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Co.
60 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1908)
Banks v. Lumber Company.
54 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Allison v. Wall
49 S.E. 831 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Hardison v. Lumber Co.
48 S.E. 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Donworth v. Sawyer
47 A. 521 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1900)