{ "id": 8654599, "name": "BERNARD ELIAS v. W. H. ARTHUR", "name_abbreviation": "Elias v. Arthur", "decision_date": "1923-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "756", "last_page": "759", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "186 N.C. 756" } ], "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": "79 N. C., 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N. C., 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660466 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/127/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N. C., 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 3841, "ocr_confidence": 0.489, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08, "percentile": 0.34068897453094754 }, "sha256": "f6d29cb41038fd3abe88646db872ab78be457d1b3118697d7de0e6700a66aec6", "simhash": "1:317821710550fbc3", "word_count": 704 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BERNARD ELIAS v. W. H. ARTHUR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Glare, C. J\".\nTbe sole question presented upon the facts agreed is whether or not the description in the deed for the lot from R. O. Patterson and wife to S. R. Chedester, set out in the record, is erroneous. The plaintiff contends that the third call mentioned in the deed should read \u201csouth 14 degrees east\u201d instead of \u201csouth 14 degrees west\u2019\u2019 as written in the deed, and that the error is so patent that upon examination of this record it will be seen, as the judge below has held, that this was a patent error and should be corrected.\nIt would seem, upon examination of the record and the contentions, that his Honor was correct in so holding. In the first place, the description calls for a lot on the north side of Patton Avenue, \u201cbeing the west end of the lot on which the parties of the first part now live.\u201d It is clear from this that the .west end of the property of grantors was intended to' be conveyed, and not the northwest corner. If it should be construed as contended by the defendant, then the conveyance would cover only the northwest corner of the land of the grantors.\nIn the second place, if the third call in the deed, \u201csouth 14 degrees west 15 poles 9 links to a stake on the western edge of Patton Avenue,\u201d be stopped at the end of the distance called for, the line would be 48.4 feet short of the distance necessary to carry the same to Patton Avenue. In the third place, the last call in the deed from Patterson and wife to Chedester is \u201cthence south 70 degrees west along said (Patton) avenue 8 poles 12 links to the beginning.\u201d If the deed were construed as contended by the defendant, the last call in the description,, instead of 8 poles and 12 links to the beginning as called for, the distance would be only 1.8 feet or 2.73 links.\nIf, therefore, the deed were construed according to defendant\u2019s contention there would be three errors in the deed at least: First, it would not convey the west end of the lot of the grantors; second, the line from the northeast corner of the lot at \u201cC\u201d would not be long enough to reach Patton Avenue; third, the line from \u201cF\u201d to \u201cA,\u201d instead of being 139.9 feet, would be only 1.8 feet.\nIt is clear, therefore, that there is a clerical error in the deed, and this should be corrected so that the description of the third call should read \u201csouth 14 degrees east\u201d instead of \u201csouth 14 degrees west\u201d as written. Hayden v. Hayden, 178 N. C., 261, where the word \u201ceastern\u201d was changed to \u201cwestern\u201d in order to fit the description to the thing intended to be described. To the same purport are the following cases: Ipock v. Gaskins, 161 N. C., 678; Brown v. Myers, 150 N. C., 443; Davidson v. Shuler, 119 N. C., 582.\nIn Wiseman v. Green, 127 N. C., 288, it is held: \u201cWhere it plainly appears from the deed itself that there is a mistake in the description as where the word \u2018east\u2019 is written \u2018west,\u2019 the Court will construe the deed according to tbe intent.\u201d Again, in bead-note 5, Mizell v. Simmons, 79 N. C., 190, it is stated: \u201cTbe Court will construe \u2018east' to mean Vest\u2019 in a call for a line in a grant wben tbe mistake is obvious and fully corrected by other calls and an annexed plat.\u201d\nWe tbink tbe judgment of bis Honor should be Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Glare, C. J\"." } ], "attorneys": [ "Martin, Bollins & Martin for plaintiff.", "D. M. Hodges, Jr., for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BERNARD ELIAS v. W. H. ARTHUR.\n(Filed 20 December, 1923.)\nDeeds and Conveyances \u2014 Descriptions\u2014Mistakes\u2014Correction\u2014Courts.\nThe court will correct, as a matter of law, the call in a deed for land from so many degrees \u201ceast\u201d to that many degrees \u201cwest,\u201d when it clearly appears from the other calls therein that this was the unmistakable intent of the parties and the mistake is obvious.\nAppeal by defendant from McElroy, J., at November Term, 1923, of BuNoombe.\nThis was a controversy submitted without action. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.\nMartin, Bollins & Martin for plaintiff.\nD. M. Hodges, Jr., for defendant." }, "file_name": "0756-01", "first_page_order": 820, "last_page_order": 823 }