{ "id": 8523964, "name": "W. A. CHAPPELL and wife, MARGARET W. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellants v. JACK A. DONNELLY and wife, DOROTHY D. DONNELLY, Defendant-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Chappell v. Donnelly", "decision_date": "1994-02-15", "docket_number": "No. 929SC808", "first_page": "626", "last_page": "631", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 N.C. App. 626" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 532", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.C. App. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553088 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/14/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4773046 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 S.E.2d 242", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524742 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/75/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 S.E.2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286-87", "parenthetical": "\"a party's appendix is not deemed part of the record\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525656 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391", "parenthetical": "\"a party's appendix is not deemed part of the record\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E.2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575067 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S.E.2d 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616083 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E.2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "788" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609713 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 715", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779554, 4776469 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0715-01", "/nc/317/0715-02" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" }, { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N.C. App. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523953 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" }, { "page": "391" }, { "page": "388-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/80/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E.2d 562", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" }, { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621418 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719" }, { "page": "719" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562844 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S.E. 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1889, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142-43" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650704 ], "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5304327, 5304790, 5307961, 5306044, 5309630 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0050-02", "/nc/326/0050-03", "/nc/326/0050-01", "/nc/326/0050-05", "/nc/326/0050-04" ] }, { "cite": "382 S.E.2d 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521440 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/95/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578" }, { "page": "578" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N.C. App. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527521 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" }, { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/94/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" }, { "page": "247" }, { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4763602 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" }, { "page": "488" }, { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530443, 2532332, 2530396, 2531257, 2532508 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0621-03", "/nc/334/0621-02", "/nc/334/0621-05", "/nc/334/0621-04", "/nc/334/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" }, { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526131 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" }, { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. App. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521231 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/97/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "248 S.E.2d 775", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "776" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555892 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "734" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S.E.2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "897-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570144 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E.2d 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566471 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E.2d 903", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 758", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611074 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0758-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246" }, { "page": "246" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N.C. App. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524972 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" }, { "page": "562" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/73/0560-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 714, "char_count": 13544, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0643096480031853e-07, "percentile": 0.7569506948088479 }, "sha256": "6c95e13a130085e3b63b2b9100d5e8e1b5ef2754ac660a3b2b84ad60b5a9e28e", "simhash": "1:03704c6a16552c56", "word_count": 2207 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:21:41.323369+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "W. A. CHAPPELL and wife, MARGARET W. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellants v. JACK A. DONNELLY and wife, DOROTHY D. DONNELLY, Defendant-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nIn this action, plaintiffs seek to establish the boundary lines between two contiguous parcels of land owned respectively by plaintiffs and defendants. They contend the court below erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion at trial for a directed verdict. We disagree.\nThe pleadings and evidence before the trial court tend to show plaintiffs and defendants are the record owners of two adjacent plots of land located in Granville County. According to the parties\u2019 respective deeds, plaintiffs\u2019 tract contains 73.41 acres, while defendants\u2019 measures 1.571 acres. As the result of a controversy regarding the proper boundary between the two tracts, plaintiffs filed a complaint pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 38-1 (1984). They alleged defendants were in wrongful possession of an approximately 22' by 332' strip of plaintiffs\u2019 land, and further contested the accuracy of certain boundary lines described in defendants\u2019 deed. Defendants answered, (1) admitting determination of the proper boundary lines was at issue; (2) denying wrongful possession; and (3) counterclaiming for ownership by adverse possession of the disputed strip.\nAt trial on 16 March 1992, plaintiffs offered evidence that they and their predecessors in interest had been vested with title to the 73.41 acre tract for more than 30 years and that the parties derived title from a common source. Plaintiffs also produced two registered land surveyors who testified concerning surveys made of the disputed property. At the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict. Defendants thereafter took a voluntary dismissal as to their counterclaim.\nI.\nInitially, we note plaintiffs commenced this matter under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 38-1 (1984), \u201cSpecial proceeding to establish [boundaries].\u201d Where the only issue to be determined is the location of a dividing line between two parcels of land, the appropriate action is a processioning proceeding as provided by G.S. \u00a7 38-1. Cobb v. Spurlin, 73 N.C. App. 560, 562, 327 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1985). Ordinarily, such a proceeding is tried before the Clerk of Superior Court of the county wherein the property lies, G.S. \u00a7 38-3(a); Strickland v. Kornegay, 240 N.C. 758, 760, 83 S.E.2d 903, 904 (1954), however, the Clerk\u2019s authority is purely statutory in nature. Pruden v. Keemer, 262 N.C. 212, 216, 136 S.E.2d 604, 607 (1964). In the event title to the land is put in issue, the Clerk may not hear the case, but must transfer it to the Superior Court where it becomes, in effect, an action to quiet title pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-10 (1984). Cobb, 73 N.C. App. at 562, 327 S.E.2d at 246; see also John C. Cooke, Litigation of Boundary and Title Disputes, North CAROLINA Boundary Law and Adjoining Landowner Disputes 407-39 (James B. McLaughlin, Jr. et al. 1989) (discussion of relationship between G.S. \u00a7 38-1 and G.S. \u00a7 41-10 and description of procedures applicable under each).\nIn the case sub judice, plaintiffs\u2019 complaint: (1) questioned the boundary lines set out in defendants\u2019 deed; (2) sought the quieting of plaintiffs\u2019 title to the contested strip of land; and (3) requested plaintiffs be declared owners, in fee simple, of the disputed area. Furthermore, defendants asserted ownership of the tract in question by reason of adverse possession under color of title. These allegations placed in issue title to the portion of land in controversy. Accordingly, the trial court acted properly in treating plaintiff\u2019s complaint as one seeking to quiet title under G.S. \u00a7 41-10. See Lane v. Lane, 255 N.C. 444, 449, 121 S.E.2d 893, 897-98 (1961).\nII.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 sole contention is that the trial court erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict \u2014 thereby dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 claim. Were this a processioning proceeding under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 38-1 (1984), plaintiffs\u2019 argument might be persuasive as a directed verdict is ordinarily improper in such a proceeding. Beal v. Dellinger, 38 N.C. App. 732, 734, 248 S.E.2d 775, 776 (1978). However, as previously discussed, the trial court properly treated this action as one to quiet title under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-10 (1984). Accordingly, a directed verdict was appropriate if, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury. Felts v. Liberty Emergency Service, 97 N.C. App. 381, 382, 388 S.E.2d 619, 620 (1990). When a court considers the propriety of a directed verdict motion, \u201cplaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn from the evidence, and all evidentiary conflicts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.\u201d Mecimore v. Cothren, 109 N.C. App. 650, 653, 428 S.E.2d 470, 472, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993). However, a directed verdict should be entered if the evidence, so considered, fails to show the existence of each element required to establish the cause of action pursued by the plaintiffs. Id.\nIn an action to quiet title under G.S. \u00a7 41-10, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving valid title in themselves. Heath v. Turner, 309 N.C. 483, 488, 308 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1983). This may be accomplished by either (1) reliance on the Real Property Marketable Title Act, or (2) utilization of traditional methods of proving title. Heath, 309 N.C. at 488, 308 S.E.2d at 247; Poore v. Swan Quarter Farms, Inc., 94 N.C. App. 530, 533, 380 S.E.2d 577, 578, modified, 95 N.C. App. 449, 382 S.E.2d 835 (1989), disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 50, 389 S.E.2d 93-94 (1990). The latter are set out in the oft-cited case of Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142 (1889), and include adverse possession and the \u201ccommon source of title\u201d doctrine. Id. at 115, 10 S.E. at 142-43.\nRegardless of the method utilized to prove title, plaintiffs, in order to present a prima facie case, must also show that the disputed tract lies within the boundaries of their property. See Cutts v. Casey, 271 N.C. 165, 167, 155 S.E.2d 519, 521 (1967); Batson v. Bell, 249 N.C. 718, 719, 107 S.E.2d 562, 563 (1959). Plaintiffs thus bear the burden of establishing the on-the-ground location of the boundary lines which they claim. Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. Tillet, 80 N.C. App. 383, 391, 343 S.E.2d 188, 194, disc. review denied, 317 N.C. 715, 347 S.E.2d 457 (1986). If they introduce deeds into evidence as proof of title, they must \u201clocate the land by fitting the description in the deeds to the earth\u2019s surface.\u201d Andrews v. Bruton, 242 N.C. 93, 96, 86 S.E.2d 786, 788 (1955). Moreover, if plaintiffs seek to establish title by means of adverse possession (without color of title), they are \u201crequired to establish the known and visible lines and boundaries of the land actually occupied for the statutory period.\u201d Id.\nA.\nAs previously discussed, prima facie evidence of title may be established by reliance upon either (1) the Real Property Marketable Title Act or (2) traditional methods of proving title. Heath v. Turner, 309 N.C. 483, 488, 308 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1983). From our review of the case sub judice, it appears plaintiffs elected the \u201ccommon source of title\u201d doctrine. In order to make a prima facie showing of title under this approach, plaintiffs were required to connect both themselves and defendants with a common source of title and then show in themselves a better title from that source. Poore v. Swan Quarter, 94 N.C. App. at 533, 380 S.E.2d at 578. However, because plaintiffs have otherwise failed to establish a prima facie case, we need not examine the adequacy of their effort to establish record title to the disputed property.\nB.\nBecause defendants contested plaintiffs\u2019 alleged title to the land in controversy, plaintiffs (in addition to establishing prima facie evidence of record title) were also required to demonstrate the disputed strip lay within the boundaries provided in their record title by showing the on-the-ground location of those boundaries. Virginia Electric, 80 N.C. App. at 391, 343 S.E.2d at 194. This aspect of plaintiffs\u2019 proof is also known as \u201cputting the land on the ground.\u201d As our Supreme Court has observed, this is a factual question: \u201c[w]hat are the boundaries is a matter of law to be determined by the court from the description set out in the conveyance. Where those boundaries may be located on the ground is a factual question to be resolved by the jury.\u201d Batson v. Bell, 249 N.C. 718, 719, 107 S.E.2d 562, 563 (1959). When, as here, plaintiffs rely upon their deeds as proof of title, evidence of the on-the-ground location of boundaries set out in the deeds is ordinarily presented by a surveyor who has surveyed plaintiffs\u2019 property using descriptions contained in plaintiffs\u2019 deeds. Such evidence is required since \u201c[a]s to the identity of the land ... a deed seldom, if ever, proves itself.\u201d Seawell v. Boone\u2019s Mill Fishing Club, Inc., 249 N.C. 402, 405, 106 S.E.2d 486, 488 (1959) (emphasis added). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8-39 (1986) provides for the use of parol evidence to identify the location of the land described in the deed. However, this evidence cannot enlarge the scope of the descriptive words because \u201c[t]he purpose of parol evidence is to fit the description to the property, not to create a description.\u201d McDaris v. Breit Bar \u201cT\u201d Corp., 265 N.C. 298, 300, 144 S.E.2d 59, 61 (1965).\nIn the case sub judice, plaintiffs offered the deeds in their record title to establish ownership, but failed to tender any evidence indicating the on-the-ground location of the disputed boundary lines referenced in those deeds. Instead, plaintiffs\u2019 evidence focused upon the boundary lines contained in defendants\u2019 chain of title in an attempt to show error in the metes-and-bounds description in one of those deeds. Registered Surveyor Grimes, a witness for plaintiffs, stated he conducted a survey of plaintiffs\u2019 property. However, our review of the record reveals he never testified where plaintiffs\u2019 relevant boundary lines were located. On cross-examination, he did speak to several lines contained in plaintiffs\u2019 deeds, but those lines were not controverted. No other evidence was produced indicating the location of plaintiffs\u2019 contested boundary lines. As plaintiffs failed to prove an essential element of their case, the trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict. See Mecimore v. Cothren, 109 N.C. App. 650, 653, 428 S.E.2d 470, 472, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993).\nWe note further that testimony concerning the boundary lines was presented primarily with reference to plaintiffs\u2019 Exhibit #1, a map prepared by Surveyor Grimes. This survey map was not properly made a part of the appellate record, but instead was included only in the appendix to plaintiffs\u2019 brief. This is a violation of our Appellate Rules, specifically Rules 9(a)(1)(j) and (d)(1). See District Board v. Blue Ridge Plating Co., 110 N.C. App. 386, 391, 430 S.E.2d 282, 286-87 (1993) (\u201ca party\u2019s appendix is not deemed part of the record\u201d); see also Watts v. Cumberland County Hosp. System, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 1, 21-22, 330 S.E.2d 242, 255-56 (1985), reversed in part on other grounds, 317 N.C. 321, 345 S.E.2d 201 (1986). While non-compliance with the Appellate Rules renders an appeal susceptible to dismissal, we have nevertheless considered the merits of the parties\u2019 arguments because it is evident (from the record which is properly before us) that plaintiffs failed to fit the description in their deeds to the earth\u2019s surface. Additionally, as our decision does not have the effect of adjudicating title to the disputed property, see Virginia Electric, 80 N.C. App. at 388-89, 343 S.E.2d at 192-93 and Allen v. Conservative Hunting Club, 14 N.C. App. 697, 703, 189 S.E.2d 532, 535 (1972), our analysis may assist in the event of further litigation between the parties.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHNSON and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John H. Pike for plaintiff-appellants.", "Edmundson & Burnette, by R. Gene Edmundson and J. Thomas Burnette, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. A. CHAPPELL and wife, MARGARET W. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff-Appellants v. JACK A. DONNELLY and wife, DOROTHY D. DONNELLY, Defendant-Appellees\nNo. 929SC808\n(Filed 15 February 1994)\n1. Quieting Title \u00a7 17 (NCI4th)\u2014 complaint to quiet title \u2014no processioning proceeding\nThe trial court properly treated plaintiffs\u2019 complaint as one seeking to quiet title under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 41-10 instead of one in a processioning proceeding under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 38-1, since the complaint questioned the boundary lines set out in defendants\u2019 deed, sought the quieting of plaintiffs\u2019 title to the contested strip of land, and requested plaintiffs be declared fee simple owners of the disputed area, while defendants asserted ownership of the tract in question by reason of adverse possession under color of title.\nAm Jur 2d, Quieting Title and Determination of Adverse Claims \u00a7\u00a7 73 et seq.\n2. Quieting Title \u00a7 27 (NCI4th)\u2014 deeds in evidence \u2014no on-the-ground location \u2014directed verdict for defendants proper\nThe trial court properly granted defendants\u2019 motion for directed verdict in an action to quiet title where plaintiffs offered the deeds in their record title to establish ownership but failed to tender any evidence indicating the on-the-ground location of the disputed boundary lines referenced in those deeds, and plaintiffs thus failed to prove an essential element of their case.\nAm Jur 2d, Quieting Title and Determination of Adverse Claims \u00a7\u00a7 78 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment filed 29 June 1992 by Judge Dexter Brooks in Granville County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 June 1993.\nJohn H. Pike for plaintiff-appellants.\nEdmundson & Burnette, by R. Gene Edmundson and J. Thomas Burnette, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0626-01", "first_page_order": 656, "last_page_order": 661 }