{
  "id": 8661246,
  "name": "W. H. BELK v. CHARLES N. VANCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Belk v. Vance",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "675",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 N.C. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 N. C., 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2086673
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/48/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 N. C., 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693105
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/29/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 5461,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20769647187924856
    },
    "sha256": "05e876e6600b84bcc0cb11dd9a6f6f23b20c371721ec91e83a3305bf6fef1c20",
    "simhash": "1:5c6e00554e521c05",
    "word_count": 978
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:28.606556+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. BELK v. CHARLES N. VANCE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlaRK, C. J.\nOn 20 July, 1796, tbe State issued to \"William. Catbcart a grant for 1,640 acres of land. At tbat time Burke and Buncombe counties adjoined each other. That portion of Burke then adjacent to Buncombe is now embraced in McDowell County.\nThis grant begins \u201con the Burke County line on a stake and hickory.\u201d The last two calls in this grant are: \u201cThen east by land supposed to be Cathcart\u2019s and Stedman\u2019s, 797 poles to a stake; then south 416 poles on Burke County line to the beginning.\u201d ' The deed under which the defendant claims recites as follows: \u201cBeginning at a stake and pointers the northeast corner of the 1,640-acre tract of land granted to William Oathcart, patent bearing date 20 July, 1796.\u201d This makes it necessary, in locating the land in defendant\u2019s deed, to determine where the northeast comer of the Cathcart grant was located.\nThe construction placed by the court upon the last description in the grant, \u201cthen south 416 poles on Burke County line to the\u2019 beginning,\u201d is, \u201csouth 416 poles with or along the Burke County line to the beginning.\u201d That line is admitted to have been along the crest of the ridge. This makes it a natural boundary and determines that the previous call, \u201ceast by the Cathcart and Stedman line, 797 poles to a stake,\u201d means \u201ca point on the crest of the ridge in said Burke County line.\u201d This construction was a matter of law for the court, and. not an issue of fact for the jury, and we think the court correctly instructed the jury.\nThe instruction of his Honor was as follows: \u201cThe court charged the jury that the northeast corner of the Oathcart grant is at the point where the northern boundary line of the Oathcart grant running east intersects the Buncombe line, and that the beginning corner of defendant\u2019s deed is at the same point.\u201d The plaintiff asked the court to charge that \u201cThe northeast corner of the Cathcart grant introduced in evidence is at the end of the call in the grant east, 797 poles to a stake.\u201d This would have carried the line 321 poles beyond the crest of the ridge, which was the county line, and would require disregarding the last call, \u201c416 poles on (with or along) Burke County line to the beginning.\u201d To locate the northeast corner of the Cathcart grant at the end of the 797 poles would have required the elimination of this last description of.\u201con the Burke County line 416 poles to tbe beginning,\u201d and the substitution therefor of \u201cthen south to the beginning.\u201d This would not be \u201con (or with) the county line,\u201d except possibly for the last 28 poles. There might have been an error in measuring the distance,' or in writing it down, but the county line along the crest of the ridge is certain and fixed. The last call, \u201ceast 797 poles to a stake,\u201d must stop where that line reached the county boundary on the crest of the ridge. Smith v. Headrick, 93 N. C., 213, citing Gilchrist v. McLaughlin, 29 N. C., 310; Corn v. McCrary, 48 N. C., 496.\nIn the record \u201cit is admitted that the determination of the controversy in this action turns upon the true location of the northeast comer of the Cathcart grant.\u201d His Honor held that this corner was where the northern boundary of that .grant going east intersected the \u201cBurke County line.\u201d\nThe boundaries of the Cathcart grant, as set out in the record, show that it began in the Burke County line, was located west of that line, and the last call was with the Burke 'County line to the beginning, thus throwing the entire tract in Buncombe County. If the next to the last call of that grant, \u201ceas$ 797 poles to a stake,\u201d could prevail, as the plaintiff contends, it would take in land in Burke County. Upon reference to the grant as recorded in the Secretary of State\u2019s office here, which we have often done (Higdon v. Rice, 119 N. C., 635; Richards v. Lumber Co., 158 N. C., 57, and in other cases), we find that the grant describes the 1,640 acres as \u201clying and being in Buncombe County.\u201d This corroborates the boundaries which place the tract entirely on the Buncombe side of the line. \u2019 \u2022\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlaRK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. D. Murphy for plaintiff.",
      "Martin, Rollins & Wright for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. BELK v. CHARLES N. VANCE.\n(Filed 20 May, 1914.)\n1. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Natural Boundaries \u2014 Controlling Calls \u2014Grants\u2014Investigation by Supreme Court.\nWhere the beginning point in a description of a deed to lands is determinative in an action to recover them, and this point is given as a certain corner of a grant by the State to adjoining lands, which is therefore necessary to be established, and the calls of the grant relevant to the inquiry are so many poles to a stake, then on a county line to a stake, the county line admittedly being along the crest of a hill, the boundary of the county is a natural boundary and controls as a matter of law that of the given distance terminating at a stake, in the preceding call, and this interpretation is confirmed by the Court\u2019s referring to the original grant in the office of the Secretary of State.\n2. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Natural Boundaries \u2014 \u201cWith or Along\u201d\u2014 Words and Phrases. \"\nThe location of a certain line given in a grant of lands from the State being controlling in this action to recover lands,' it is held that calls in the grant, \u201cthence south 416 poles on Burke County line to the beginning,\u201d .the line being a natural boundary, should be interpreted as that number of poles \u201cwith or along\u201d that line.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at February Teim, 1914, of BUNCOMBE.\nJ. D. Murphy for plaintiff.\nMartin, Rollins & Wright for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 721,
  "last_page_order": 723
}