Legal Opinion

Katz v. . Daughtrey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 26, 1930PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J\,

after stating tbe case: The case turns on the question as to whether the defendant’s deed, which is prior in date of execution and registration to that of the plaintiff’s, is valid, either to pass title, or as color thereof.

That the deed is void for vagueness and uncertainty of description would seem to admit of no doubt. It fails to describe with certainty the property sought to be conveyed, and it contains no reference to anything extrinsic, which by recourse thereto is capable of making the description certain under the principle of id cerium est quod cerium reddi potest.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Farmer v. . BattsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
  2. Perry v. . ScottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  3. Dickens v. . BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. Barker v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
  5. Harrell v. . ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, NC, Inc. v. GaineySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Powell v. MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Deans v. DeansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Hodges v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Johnston County v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API