Cansler v. . Fite
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN of trespass Q. C. F., tried before PjbksoN, J., at the Fill! Term, 1857, of Gaston Superior Court. Both-plaintiff and defendant claimed under one Cox.
Read the full summary
ActioN of trespass Q. C. F., tried before PjbksoN, J., at the Fill! Term, 1857, of Gaston Superior Court. Both-plaintiff and defendant claimed under one Cox. He originally owned the land, described in the annexed diagram, by the letters O,. R, A, D. In 1787, he made a deed to Nathaniel Parrar for that part of the land next to the Catawba river, described as follows : “ Beginning at a red-oak on the bank of the river (G) runs S. 44, W. 127 poles to a Spanish oak, in, or near Richman’s line ; thence S. 46, E. 120 poles to a stake, near Bonner’s corner pine; thence N. 44, E. to a stake on the…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, J.
That the distance set out in the deed from Oox to Nelson, is controlled by the call for “ Nathaniel Farrar’s corner, thence with his line, &c.,” is settled by Corn v. Mo- Orary, 3 Jones’ Rep. 498. The location of this corner and line, can only be made by the “ course and distance” set out in the deed from Oox to Farrar, and it was contended that as it depended on course and distance, it was no more certain than the line arrived at by the course and distance in the deed from Cox to Nelson, and, therefore, ought not to control it. We do not concur in this view. The deed from Oox to Farrar, has…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Mizell v. . SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- W. M. Ritter Lumber Co. v. Montvale Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Lumber Co. v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. HuttonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Shaffer v. . GaynorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.