{
  "id": 11254252,
  "name": "GEORGE L. BAKER v. G. B. AUSTIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Austin",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "433",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 N.C. 433"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 N. C., 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N. C., 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681391
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/11/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 N. C., 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N. C., 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2088521
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/52/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685801
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/81/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 947",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662098
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0947-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252000
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 5063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5728092063582398e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6790036793650904
    },
    "sha256": "dd5018b3e434ba2a0c74e982ebf25ea16ab0cdfed354a0b2be129d62d1c8fe47",
    "simhash": "1:61707913e9312ef5",
    "word_count": 897
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE L. BAKER v. G. B. AUSTIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe defendant contends that this is a case of \u201cfeeding an estoj)pel.\u201d The plaintiff conveyed \u201call of my entire interest in my father\u2019s land . . . where my mother Frances Baker now lives, the land known as the Robert Baker land,\u201d giving the boundaries. The reference to \u201cmy father\u2019s land\u201d was merely descriptive of the land and was not restricted to the interest which' he bad acquired from bis father. But to put the matter beyond all doubt be conveys the land in fee simple, with covenant of seisin in fee, covenant against encumbrances, covenant of right to convey, and adds, \u201cI will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons.\u201d The conveyance was of bis entire interest in that tract of land, and though be mistakenly described it as bis father\u2019s land, that did not change the fact that be conveyed \u201call of my entire interest\u201d in that land, whose identity is fixed beyond question by stating that it is the place on which bis mother then lived; that it was known as the Robert Baker land, and giving the boundaries. Though at the time be bad no interest in the land when the title to the 53/147 was afterwards devised to him, this fed the estoppel, and be cannot now recover against bis deed, with warranty, of said land.\nThis is well settled: \u201cWhere a deed is sufficient in form to convey the grantor\u2019s whole interest, an interest afterwards acquired passes by way of estoppel to tbe grantee.\u201d Buchanan v. Harrington, 141 N. C., 39; Hallyburton v. Slagle, 132 N. C., 947; Foster v. Hackett, 112 N. C., 546; Bell v. Adams, 81 N. C., 118; Wellborn v. Finley, 52 N. C., 228; Armfield v. Moore, 44 N. C., 162; Taylor v. Shufford, 11 N. C., 116.\nThe general rule is thus stated 16 Oyc., 689, with full citations in the notes: \u201cIf a grantor having no title, a defective title, or an estate less than that which he assumed to grant, conveys with warranty or covenants of like import, and subsequently acquires the title or estate which he purported to convey, or perfects his title, such after-acquired or perfected title will inure to the grantee or to his benefit by way of estoppel.\u201d\nIn Olds v. Cedar Works, 173 N. C., 164-166, in a very interesting discussion, Allen, J., cites the authorities and points out the distinction between an estoppel, which may exist without a covenant of warranty, and a rebutter, which is dependent upon a warranty. Weeks v. Wilkins, 139 N. C., 217, and adds: \u201cWhere there is a covenant of warranty, the deed not only destroys the right of action in the grantor and his heirs to the after-acquired estate by rebutter, but it also passes the title to the grantee by estoppel by warranty.\u201d We can add nothing to what is there so well said.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. A. Houghton, B. L. Ballou, and (?. L. Parle for plaintiff.",
      "T. C. Bowie for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE L. BAKER v. G. B. AUSTIN.\n(Filed 31 October, 1917.)\nDeeds and Conveyances \u2014 Warranty \u2014 After-acquired Title \u2014 \u201cFeeding an Estoppel.\u201d\nA conveyance of all the grantor\u2019s interest in a described tract of land, setting out that it is \u201cmy entire interest in my father\u2019s land, the deceased, where my mother now lives,\u201d with full covenants of seizin and warranty, and the land belonged to the mother of the grantor, who lived thereupon, and died seized and possessed thereof, and devised the grantor an interest therein: Held,, the devise of such interest fed the estoppel under the grantor\u2019s previous deed, and he will not be allowed to recover against it.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harding, J., at April Term, 1917, of Ashe.\nThe plaintiff, on 4 July, 1888, conveyed to his half-brother, \u201cWilliam Baker, all of my entire interest in my father\u2019s land, the deceased, where my mother, Frankie Baker, now lives, the land known as the Eobert Baker land, bounded\u201d (describing it). In the habendum there is this language: \u201cTo have and to hold the same to the said William Baker, his heirs and assigns; that I am lawfully seized in .fee of the premises; that they are free from all encumbrances; that I have a good right to sell the same to said \"William Baker, Ms beirs and assigns, and tbat I will warrant and defend tbe same against tbe lawful claims and demands of all persons.\u201d\nBy mesne conveyance said tract bas been conveyed to tbe defendant. Tbe land in question belonged to William Baker\u2019s mother, Frances Baker, wbo died seized in fee simple. George L. Baker\u2019s father died in 1881. \"When bis mother died, in 1907, she devised this tract of' land to himself and others, under which will tbe plaintiff claims tbat be is tbe owner in fee of 53/147 undivided interest in said tract, and be asks to be let into possession of said undivided interest in said land as tenant in common with tbe defendant.\nTbe defendant claims tbat, as to tbe interest tbe plaintiff acquired by bis mother\u2019s will, be is estopped by bis deed of warranty, above set out.\nTbe court held tbat tbe warranty estopped tbe plaintiff from claiming an interest in tbe land as devisee of bis mother, and nonsuited tbe plaintiff, from which be appealed.\nB. A. Houghton, B. L. Ballou, and (?. L. Parle for plaintiff.\nT. C. Bowie for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0433-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 491
}