{
  "id": 8661266,
  "name": "E. WALLACE v. ROBERT BARLOW",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wallace v. Barlow",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "676",
  "last_page": "678",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 N.C. 676"
    }
  ],
  "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": "41 N. C., 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2102625
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/41/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N. C., 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2100126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/39/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 6400,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.789707275940276e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3611756901657201
    },
    "sha256": "ce455b0117dc84595811fff9326fc9e29c0bc3b2cf2f8e576bfa717263887d52",
    "simhash": "1:fe56fae05464d357",
    "word_count": 1127
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:28.606556+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. WALLACE v. ROBERT BARLOW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nIt is not necessary to decide whether any evidence of notice, outside of a survey, is admissible to aid a vague and indefinite entry, as his Honor heard the evidence tending to prove notice, and the jury has found under proper instructions there was no notice.\nThe entry of the plaintiff is in all material respects like the one considered in Call v. Robinett, 147 N. C., 616, which was held too vague to affect a senior grantee with, notice, and that case is decisive of this.\nIn the present case the entry is \u201cE. Wallace enters 100 acres of land in said county in Boomer Township, on the waters of White\u2019s Creek, adjoining the lands of Robert Barlow and others, beginning on a stake in Robert Barlow\u2019s line on Berry\u2019s Mountain and running various courses for complements,\u201d and in the Call-Robinett case, \u201c640 acres of land in said county, lying on the waters of Stony Fork, in Elk Township, adjoining the lands of S. G. Anderson and others, beginning on a stake in S. G. Anderson\u2019s line and running various courses for complements\u201d; and of the latter entry the Court said:\n\u201cThe defendant says, conceding that the legal title passed to plaintiff by entry, survey, and grant, he is entitled -to have him declared a trustee for his benefit. It is well settled that when an entry is made, and subsequent thereto another person lays an entry and takes a grant, he acquires the title, and the grantee will be declared a- trustee for tbe first enterer; tlie reason of tbis being that tbe first entry entitled tbe enterer to a prior right or equity to call for legal title upon complying witb tbe statute, and tbe second enterer took, subject to tbis claim or equity, tbe entry being notice thereof. Tbe defendant is confronted witb two difficulties in tbis aspect of tbe case: First, bis entry is subsequent to that under which plaintiff claims. * Second, bis entry is too vague and indefinite to give any notice. It is always held that to entitle tbe first to have tbe grantee declared a trustee, bis entry must be sufficiently definite to put tbe second enterer upon notice. In Johnson v. Shelton, 39 N. C., 85, Ruffin, 0. J., says that if the,-first entry is too vague to put tbe second enterer upon notice, equity will not aid him. Tbis is a different question from that which we first discussed. There tbe survey makes tbe vague entry certain, and tbe State accepts it and issues tbe grant. Here tbe question of notice of tbe first entry controls tbe rights of tbe parties. If tbe first enterer makes bis entry certain by survey before tbe second entry, it is sufficient. So, in Munroe v. McCormick, 41 N. C., 85, Pearson, J., says: \u2018When one makes an entry so vague as not to identify tbe land, such entry does not amount to notice and does not give any priority\u2019of right as against another individual who makes an entry, has it surveyed, and takes out a grant.\u2019 Tested by tbe decided cases cited in Grayson v. English and Fisher v. Owens, swpra, we think defendant\u2019s entry too vague to afford notice. It is a 'floating entry,\u2019 without any definite beginning. \u2018A stake in S. G-. Anderson\u2019s line\u2019 is about as vague as it is possible to make it. It calls for no single point from which a survey could be made, and gives no other indicia for that purpose.\u201d\nTbe exception to tbe exclusion of tbe two questions asked tbe witness Ferguson are without merit. There is nothing in tbe record to indicate what answers would have been made by tbe witness, and tbe questions relate to an entry not involved in tbis controversy, and which, as tbe witness says, tbe plaintiff \u201clet run out.\u201d\nTbe other exceptions are untenable in view of our holding as to tbe sufficiency of tbe plaintiff\u2019s entry.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh A. Cranor and Frank D. Hachett for plaintiff.",
      "W. W. Barber for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. WALLACE v. ROBERT BARLOW.\n(Filed 20 May, 1914.)\n1. State\u2019s Lands \u2014 Entry\u2014Vague Description \u2014 Trusts and Trustees.\nIn order to declare that a second enterer upon State\u2019s lands, and who takes a grant to the lands covered by the first entry, holds the lands in trust of the latter\u2019 upon completing his entry, it is necessary that the prior entry sufficiently describe the land to give notice of its location and extent; and in this action the description filed with first entry is held to be too vague and indefinite, towit: E. W. enters 100 acres of land in said county, in B. Township, on the waters of White Creek,- adjoining the lands of A. and others, beginning on a stake on A.\u2019s line on Berry Mountain, and running various courses for complements.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Unanswered Questions.\nExceptions to unanswered questions, without indication of their relevancy or materiality, will not be considered on appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cline, J., at October Term, 1913, of Wilkes.\nTbis is an action to remove a cloud from title and to declare a trust in certain land.\nTbe plaintiff claims title from tbe State under Grant No. 16401, for 50 acres. Grant issued on 14 January, 1905, based upon an entry filed in tbe office of tbe entry-taker of Wilkes County, on 1 January, 1902, by plaintiff; survey made thereunder on 12 December, 1904, and application for grant filed in tbe office of tbe Secretary of State, and jiurchase money therefor, paid on 31 December, 1904; warrant of survey issued 18 April, 1903. Tbe entry of tbe plaintiff is as follows:\n\u201cE. Wallace enters 100 acres of land in said county, in Boomer Township, on tbe waters of White\u2019s Greek, adjoining tbe lands of Robert Barlow and others, beginning on a stake in Robert Barlow\u2019s line on Berry\u2019s Mountain, and running various courses for complements. \u2018E. Wallace.\u2019 \u201d\nThe defendant claims title from tbe State under Grant No. 15814, issued on 28 March, 1903, based upon an entry filed in tbe office of tbe entry-taker for Wilkes County on 26 March, 1902, and warrant issued 7 April, 1902.\nIt was admitted at the trial of the cause that the land in controversy was covered by both grants.\nPlaintiff relies upon \u201cpriority of entry, and notice, both actual and constructive,\u201d to defendant of plaintiff\u2019s prior entry.\nThe defendant contends that the entry of the plaintiff is too vague and indefinite to affect him with notice.\nHis Honor held that the entry of the plaintiff was not sufficient to give notice, and the plaintiff excepted.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nHugh A. Cranor and Frank D. Hachett for plaintiff.\nW. W. Barber for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0676-01",
  "first_page_order": 724,
  "last_page_order": 726
}