{ "id": 8615501, "name": "A. CAUDILL v. NOAH WADE McNEIL and wife, ALMA S. McNEIL; N. P. MYERS and MRS. DAPHNA M. McNEIL", "name_abbreviation": "Caudill v. McNeil", "decision_date": "1959-01-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "376", "last_page": "378", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "249 N.C. 376" } ], "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": "86 S.E. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617860 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.C. 12", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276845 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/85/0012-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N.C. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624681 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.E. 2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607690 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0356-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 415, "char_count": 7696, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.207179646380928 }, "sha256": "f69c4708a3223ffdfcc46e0e07f705342a8e5cf01709f3995a25824dd4a03a9d", "simhash": "1:34f6ff01be2db221", "word_count": 1338 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. CAUDILL v. NOAH WADE McNEIL and wife, ALMA S. McNEIL; N. P. MYERS and MRS. DAPHNA M. McNEIL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nThe several assignments of error present only one question: Does the description in the deed to plaintiff furnish information which will permit an informed person to locate on the ground the corners called for?\nThe description in the deed to plaintiff reads:\n\u201cBEGINNING on a White Oak M. C. Reeves\u2019 southwest corner running northward with the Gregory Road to the Hunt Road west with the Hunt Road to the C. M. Dearman corner, then with C. M. Dearman\u2019s line to L. Wood\u2019s line, then with said line to M. D. Reeves and L. Wood\u2019s Pine corner, then east a sufficient distance to divide the M. D. Reeves land equally, thence south with an agreed line to the Hunt Road, thence southeast an agreed line to J. S. Pend-ry line, thence with the said Pendry\u2019s line back to beginning, including ten acres on the south side of the Hunt Road and including one half of the M. D. Reeves land.\u201d\nThe asserted vagueness grows out of the call \u201cthen east a sufficient distance to divide the M. D. Reeves land equally.\u201d It is plaintiff\u2019s position that this language and the concluding clause of the description, \u201cincluding one half of the M. D. Reeves land,\u201d means one half in area. Based on this interpretation plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from W. U. Higgins to M. D. Reeves dated 5 April 1904, recorded 6 December 1904. He then offered evidence by the court surveyor tending to establish the boundaries of that tract and the fact that it was known as the M. D. Reeves land.\nThe land described in the deed from Higgins to Reeves covers the land claimed by plaintiff and the land claimed by defendants, and these claims cover all of the land described in the Higgins-Reeves deed. The surveyor testified that he knew each of the boundaries called for in that deed and had at one time or another surveyed each of the lines called for. He further testified that he had surveyed the land claimed by plaintiff from its beginning corner \u201cto M. D. Reeves and L. Wood\u2019s Pine corner\u201d as called for in plaintiff\u2019s deed. He knew each of these calls; they were correctly located on the court map; he had surveyed the calls \u201cwith an agreed line to the Hunt Road, thence southeast\u201d etc., as directed in the deed, to the beginning. Plaintiff then proposed to show by the court surveyor that he had computed the acreage of the M. D. Reeves land as described in the deed from Higgins and could, by -the computation, determine how far east it would be necessary to go to divide the M. D. Reeves land equally as to area by running in accordance with the remaining calls to the beginning. This evidence offered by plaintiff was excluded.\nWe cannot 'concur in the view expressed by defendants that the meaning of the language \u201ca sufficient distance to divide the M. D. Reeves land equally\u201d is, when supplemented by the language \u201cincluding one half of the M. D. Reeves land,\u201d fairly susceptible of two interpretations: one, a division based on value; the other, a division based on area; and because of these two permissible interpretations it is not possible to determine what property is intended to be described.\nThe deed to plaintiff recites a substantial consideration. Presumably the grantor intended to convey a readily identifiable parcel of land \u2014 not something almost certain to produce controversy in the future. That intent should be given effect if possible. Duckett v. Lyda, 223 N.C. 356, 26 S.E. 2d 918; Lee v. Barefoot, 196 N.C. 107, 144 S.E. 547. The deed first says: \u201cto divide the M. D. Reeves land equally,\u201d and having completed the description and in the place usually given to the area of the property conveyed, says \u201cone half of the M. D. Reeves land.\u201d If value had been intended, why not direct the surveyor to run the line so as to convey land worth $1625, the consideration paid? Fairly interpreted, we have no doubt of grantor\u2019s intention to convey one half in area nor do we doubt the sufficiency of the language to appropriately express that intent.\nGiven that meaning it was, the surveyor testified, a mere matter of mathematical computation to determine the location of the line necessary to divide the land described in the deed from Higgins to Reeves in two parts of equal areas. That this can be done can be readily demonstrated graphically. Since the missing line could be determined by calculation, the description was sufficient. Oxford v. White, 95 N.C. 525; Warren v. Makely, 85 N.C. 12.\nHolding as we do that the description is not void \u00e1s a matter of law, it follows that evidence to show the location of the various corners to be as plaintiff contended was competent. It would not be competent to use a junior deed from the common grantor for the purpose of locating the boundaries of plaintiff\u2019s land. Coffey v. Greer, 241 N.C. 744, 86 S.E. 2d 441, and cases cited.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph Davis and McElwee & Ferree for plaintiff, appellant.", "Whicker \u2022& Whicker for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. CAUDILL v. NOAH WADE McNEIL and wife, ALMA S. McNEIL; N. P. MYERS and MRS. DAPHNA M. McNEIL.\n(Filed 14 January, 1959.)\n1. Boundaries \u00a7 9\u2014\nA description in a deed to part of a tract of land which gives certain corners and lines and tlien directs \u201cthen east a sufficient distance to divide\u201d the land equally, thence south to a road and thence along definite lines to the beginning, so as to include one half the tract, is held to require the division of the land by area rather than by value and is a sufficient description if the dividing line can be established by mathematical computation, and the exclusion of testimony of the court surveyor that he had ascertained the dividing line by computation and the running of the remaining calls in the description, was error.\n2. Boundaries \u00a7 5\u2014\nIt is not competent to use a junior deed from the common grantor for the purpose of locating the boundaries of the senior deed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crissman, J., April-May Term, 1958, of Wilkes.\nThis is a processioning proceeding. Plaintiff alleged ownership of a specifically described tract of land and his location of the disputed line.\nDefendants denied plaintiff\u2019s ownership. They alleged they were the owners of a tract specifically described in a deed to them. They also asserted title by adverse possession. Surveyors were appointed as required by statute. They surveyed the respective contentions and made and filed a map showing land claimed by plaintiff, land claimed by defendants, and the respective contentions as to the location of \u2022the line dividing the properties. Only one boundary is in controversy.\nOn the trial in the Superior Court it was \u201cstipulated that both parties received their title from a common source and that the common grantors were M. D. Reeves and wife A. C. Reeves.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s deed from M. D. Reeves and wife is dated 8 November 1912 and was recorded 3 March 1913. The record does not disclose the date of the deed under which defendants claim title. It is stated in the brief for plaintiff appellant that his is the senior title from the common source. We understand from the oral argument and the brief of defendant appellees this to be conceded.\nPlaintiff offered in evidence the deed to him from M. D. Reeves and wife dated and recorded as aforesaid. He then proposed to show by the court surveyor the location of the several lines called for in that deed. The court was of the opinion that the description was so vague and uncertain that parol evidence could not be offered for the purpose of establishing its boundaries and was such as \u201cto make it impossible to locate the north-south dividing line between petitioner and respondents.\u201d He thereupon rendered judgment fixing the location of the dividing line in accordance with the contention of defendants.\nRalph Davis and McElwee & Ferree for plaintiff, appellant.\nWhicker \u2022& Whicker for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0376-01", "first_page_order": 418, "last_page_order": 420 }