Addington v. . Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action of. ejectment, tried before Bailey, J., at the Pall Term, 1859, of Macon Superior Court. The plaintiff exhibited a grant from the State, bearing date in 1842, which called for a chestnut in the west boundary of No. 122,,as the beginning.. No. 122 was one of several, tracts of land surveyed and sold under the direction of commissioners appointed to sell the Cherokee lands in the year 1827, and the main point in controversy was' as to its location.
Read the full summary
Action of. ejectment, tried before Bailey, J., at the Pall Term, 1859, of Macon Superior Court. The plaintiff exhibited a grant from the State, bearing date in 1842, which called for a chestnut in the west boundary of No. 122,,as the beginning.. No. 122 was one of several, tracts of land surveyed and sold under the direction of commissioners appointed to sell the Cherokee lands in the year 1827, and the main point in controversy was' as to its location. If located north of a given east and west line, which was agreed on, the land described in the plaintiff’s grant would cover the locus in…
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, O. J.
If, in addition to the metes and bounds, it had been set out in the grant, as a part of the description “ including a part of Moses Addington’s field,” an interesting question would have been presented. It is settled that a line of marked trees, or a tree marked as a corner, although not called for in the grant, or any natural object called for in the grant, which can be identified, and has sufficient ces'tainty to furnish of itself a description in place of the course and distances set out in the grant, will be allowed the effect of contradicting the course and distance so as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dudley v. . JeffressSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Millikin v. . SessomsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917