Brown v. Hurley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BáRNHill, C. J.
The contention of the defendants that the description in the complaint and in the plaintiff’s deed is too vague to permit proof aliunde as to the land intended to be conveyed thereby is without merit. That the boundaries do not go entirely around the land does not invalidate the description. G.S. 39-2. Parol evidence to identify the land sued for and to fit it to the description contained in the paper writing offered as evidence of title was admissible. G.S. 8-39. Timber Co. v. Yarbrough, 179 N.C. 335, 102 S.E. 630; Peel v. Calais, 224 N.C. 421, 31 S.E. 2d 440; Williams v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Locklear v. . SavageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. BrinkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Williams v. RobertsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Berry v. . CoppersmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Doe on the Demise of Loftin v. CobbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McDaris v. Breit Bar" T" CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Cothran v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- State v. FonvilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Kelly v. KellySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Steller v. DavidSuperior Court of Delaware · 1969