{
  "id": 11270025,
  "name": "THOMAS W. BABB v. GAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Babb v. Gay Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-02-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "140",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 139"
    }
  ],
  "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": "109 N. C., 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N. C., 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688168
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 W. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270928
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0615-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661666
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0649-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3207,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23911818797157672
    },
    "sha256": "aa4a3dbc728631d63765a020ebd81fcafb12af34a74a69bfb6b377958b2fc9dd",
    "simhash": "1:e0a0315a376c1154",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS W. BABB v. GAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nIt is unnecessary to determine the validity of the entry made by plaintiff upon the lands in controversy. It is quite indefinite and uncertain, and may possibly be void for that reason. Fisher v. Owens, 144 N. C., 649; Call v. Robinett, 147 N. C., 615. But we sustain the judgment of the Superior Court upon the ground tbat plaintiff enterer bas failed to sbow tbat the lands entered are vacant and unappropriated. Walker v. Carpenter, 144 N. C., 674.\nFor the purpose of showing tbat the lands be bas entered are unappropriated the plaintiff introduced a grant to James P. Winslow, dated 29 December, 1891, and a deed from W. H. Lamb and J. H. Lane to defendant, dated 3 December, 1895, botb containing the following description: \u201cBeing the Tbomas E. Wins-low entry, beginning at Rufus White\u2019s corner and running'S. 70 E. 161 chains to Stallings\u2019 corner; thence N. 20 E. 27 chains to Hollowell\u2019s corner; thence N. 59 W. 152 chains to David White\u2019s corner; thence S. 32% W. 52 chains to the first station; containing 650 acres, more or less.\u201d Tbe plaintiff contends tbat the grant and deed are void, for the reason tbat the land attempted to be described therein cannot be located. Tbe defendant introduced a deed from J. P. Winslow to-Lamb and Lane for the same land.\nIt is not necessary tbat the defendant, the claimant, should sbow an assignment of the Tbomas E. Winslow entry, or to show tbat the words \u201cTbomas E. Winslow,\u201d recited in the grant, were intended for James P. Winslow.\nWhen plaintiff put in evidence a valid grant from the State, issued in 1891, long prior to bis entry, be showed that the lands bad been previously granted and were not vacant and unappropriated.\nWe see no reason why the grant cannot be located by parol evidence. It is certainly not void on its face. Tbe Rufus White corner called for in the grant may be located by reference to the Stallings corner and the course and distance between the two, and it is competent to introduce parol evidence to locate those comers. Shepherd v. Simpson, 12 N. C., 237; Perry v. Scott, 109 N. C., 374.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond and P. W. McMullan for plaintiff.",
      "Shepherd & Shepherd and Pruden & Pruden for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS W. BABB v. GAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 17 February, 1909.)\n1. State\u2019s Lands \u2014 Enterer\u2014Prior Grant \u2014 Evidence\u2014Vacant and Unappropriated.\nWhen plaintiff, enterer, introduces a valid grant, issued prior to liis, under which the defendant claims, it shows that the lands had been previously granted and were not vacant and unappropriated at the time of the issuance of his grant, and it is unnecessary for- the defendant, claimant, to show a connected title therewith.\n2. State\u2019s Lands \u2014 Grants\u2014Description Sufficient.\nWhen a grant of land gives the corners and courses and distances of the land, and the first corner can thereby be located with reference to the second, and parol evidence is competent to locate the two, it is not void upon its face for uncertainty of description.\nPROCEEDING under the entry laws, heard before Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1908, of Perquimans.\nFrom a judgment sustaining the protest filed by defendant the plaintiff (the enterer) appealed.\nW. M. Bond and P. W. McMullan for plaintiff.\nShepherd & Shepherd and Pruden & Pruden for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 183,
  "last_page_order": 184
}