{ "id": 8659420, "name": "PEBBLES v. GRAHAM", "name_abbreviation": "Pebbles v. Graham", "decision_date": "1901-05-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "218", "last_page": "221", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "128 N.C. 218" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "15 N. C., 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N. C., 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654423 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/116/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N. C., 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656027 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/120/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N. C., 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N. C., 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649579 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0030-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 322, "char_count": 5486, "ocr_confidence": 0.419, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3153751549914554e-07, "percentile": 0.6254542253235613 }, "sha256": "d5f8b85b8aaa87438c775bafeb373bf4f5dff7d7f7326f2eeb6956d55c5eefbf", "simhash": "1:a727823db1f7ed96", "word_count": 1011 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Clase, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case." ], "parties": [ "PEBBLES v. GRAHAM." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "DbpeNDANt\u2019s Appeal.\nEueches, C. J.\nThis is an action of ejectment to recover possession of a triangular piece of land lying on tbe west side of tbe Ealeigb and Eoxboro road. Both parties claim under tbe will of Paul C. Cameron; tbe plaintiff under item 11,\nwbicb is as follows: \u201cI also give, devise and bequeath to E. B. Peebles, as trustee aforesaid, all tbe lands included under tbe name of tbe Arnold, tbe Geer and tbe Jones lands\u2014 all east of tbe Ealeigb and Eoxboro road and south of Neuse Eiver, in Durham County, and tbe title papers all with my sister Margaret\u2019s papers in tbe Citizens Bank at Ealeigb\u201d; and tbe defendant under item 9, wbicb is as follows: \u201cI also ,give and devise to John W. Graham as trustee aforesaid, for bis son George M. Graham, all tbe lands known and called as tbe \u2018Leathers,\u2019 \u2018Briggs,\u2019 \u2018Eeavis\u2019 and \u2018Southerland,\u2019 on the south side of Eno, and on the Ealeigh and Eoxboro and Hills-boro and Fisb Dam roads, and all now in Durham County, and all title deeds registered in Orange and containing between 1,500 and 1,700 acres \u2014 to George and his heirs an inheritance in fee simple when he comes of age.\u201d\nThe plaintiff claims the land in dispute as a part of the \u201cArnold\u201d land, and the defendant claims it as a part of the \u201cBriggs\u201d land.\nUpon the trial it appeared that the Geer land, the Jones land and the greater part of the Arnold land were on the east side of tire Raleigh and Roxboro road. But there was evidence tending to show that the triangular piece claimed by the plaintiff was a part of the Arnold tract; and the Court submitted this question to the jury and instructed them that if they found from the evidence that the 64 acres in dispute was a part of the \u201cArnold\u201d tract, to find for the plaintiff. The first issue was as follows: \u201cAre the plaintiffs the owners and entitled' to the possession of the lands claimed by them as described in the complaint, or any part thereof, and if so, what part?\u201d And the jury answered this issue, \u201cYes; 64% acres triangle west of the R. and R., as shown on the plat.\u201d In this submission and instruction there was error.\nIn matters of location it is the duty of the Court to instruct the jury what are the boundaries, and it is the duty of the 'jury to find and locate them. There being no dispute as to the Raleigh and Roxboro road, and it being admitted that the 64% acres claimed by the plaintiff were on the west side of the road, and it being admitted that plaintiff had no claim to this 64% acres except under the 11th section of Paul C. Cameron\u2019s will, quoted above, it became a question of law for the Court.\nIf the description had closed with \u201call the lands included under the name of the 'Arnold,\u2019 the 'Geer\u2019 and the 'Jones\u2019 lands,\u201d and there being a dispute as to whether the 64%.acres were a part of the \u201cArnold\u201d land, it would have been proper for the Court to submit that question to the jury. But the description did not stop here; it added, \u201call east of the Raleigh and Roxboro road.\u201d This qualification must mean something. It would not have been added if it did not. The description without this qualifying clause would undoubtedly had given the plaintiff all the \u201cArnold\u201d land, including the 64% acres \u2014 as the jury have found that to be a part of the Arnold land. So it could not have been added to enlarge the gift, nor to explain the devise; for if it was the intention of the testator to give the whole of the \u201cArnold\u201d land to the plaintiff, he had done so without the additional qualifying words \u2014 \u201call on the east side of the Raleigh, and Roxboro road.\u201d As this language, according to all rules of interpretation, the only meaning it can have is to restrict the gift to the east side of the road. Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 30; Branch v. Hunter, 61 N. C., 3.\nWe think the testator intended to give the plaintiff the Qeer land, the Jones land, and all the Arnold land east of the Raleigh and Roxboro- road.\nPutting this construction upon the devise to.plaintiff, he had no title to the 64% acres on the west' side of the Raleigh and Roxboro road, and being the plaintiff he could not recover, whether the defendant was the owner of the 64% acres or not.\nThe view we have taken of this case, it seems to us, is sustained by Midgett v. Twyford, 120 N. C., 4, and many other cases, while we do not think it is in conflict with Cox v. McGowan, 116 N. C., 131, nor Procter v. Pool, 15 N. C., 374, nor any other case cited by the plaintiff.\nThe plaintiff having failed to show any title to the 64% acres which lies on the west side of the road, there was error in the Court\u2019s submitting that question to the jury.\nError.\nClase, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Eueches, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Winston & Fuller, Shepherd & Shepherd, and B. B. Pee-bles, for the plaintiff.", "Manning & Foushee, and Graham & Graham, for the defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PEBBLES v. GRAHAM.\n(Filed May 7, 1901.)\n1 BOUNDARIES \u2014 Location\u2022 \u2014 Question for Jury \u2014 Questions for Court \u2014 Devises\u2014Ejectment.\nThe Court should instruct the jury what are boundaries, and the jury should find and locate them.\n2. BOUNDARIES \u2014 Description\u25a0\u2014Legacies and, Devises\u25a0 \u2014 Wills\u2014 Ejectment.\nA devise of certain tracts of land east of a road passes no part of such tracts west of such road.\nActioN by R. B. Peebles, trustee of R. B. Peebles and A. R. Peebles, against John W. Graham, trustee of Geo. M. Graham, heard by Judge Fred. Moore and a jury, at March Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Dueham; County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nWinston & Fuller, Shepherd & Shepherd, and B. B. Pee-bles, for the plaintiff.\nManning & Foushee, and Graham & Graham, for the defendants." }, "file_name": "0218-01", "first_page_order": 254, "last_page_order": 257 }