Hemphill v. . Annis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oivui aotioN, tried before Brown, J., at May Special Term, 1896, of MoDowicrm Superior Court. There was a verdict for the defendants, and plaintiffs appealed from the judgment thereon, assigning as error the exclusion of the parol evidence offered to identify the land alleged to be conveyed by the deed upon which they relied. The ■excluded evidence is sufficiently referred to in the opinion of Associate Justice Avkry.
1Opinion of the Court
Aykry, J. :
It is elementary learning that no contract can he enforced unless the subject matter upon which it is intended by the parties to operate can first be definitely ascertained from its terms, either through an explicit description therein or a reference which points to extrinsic means of identification.
This principle applies to verbal agreements as well as to those required by the statute {Code, Sections 155'2 to 1555) to be in writing. Hence, where a statute is passed by the Legislature making it essential to the validity of contracts conveying any interest in land that they should…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Perry v. . ScottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Lowe v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Beattie v. Carolina Central RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Harrison v. . HahnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Doe Ex Dem. of Melton v. MondaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gudger v. White.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Harris v. Woodard.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Katz v. . DaughtreySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Ipock v. GaskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Ipock v. . GaskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.