{
  "id": 8682450,
  "name": "Doe on the demise of DOCTOR F. MANN v. WILLIAM H. TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe on the demise of Mann v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1857-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Jones 272"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 N.C. 272"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 3922,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.402,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.968318214294862e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8501171303809605
    },
    "sha256": "d633a91eabe8f6e6fa9603b257f22b90d492ae8a6ca7d2199f43307a8f0fa8ae",
    "simhash": "1:e4dc26db02ce86c4",
    "word_count": 691
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:10.197681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe on the demise of DOCTOR F. MANN v. WILLIAM H. TAYLOR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, J.\nThe objection in regard to the location of the grant to Dobbs, is fatal to the plaintiff\u2019s claim, and it is unnecessary to advert to any of the \u25a0 other points made in the Court below.\nThe grant has two descriptions: First, it is a grant of 12,500 acres, being a subdivision of tract No. 2, and it is bounded by tract R. on the south and east, and by the tract T on the west. If the tracts R and T could be identified, this description, under the rule id eertum est quod eer-tum reddipotest, would be sufficient to make out a location of the tract in question, by aid of the fact, that it is a paralello-gram, which having three sides known, the fourth could be ascertained ; but no proofs were offered for the purpose of identifying the tracts R and T. So this description may be put out of the case.\nThe second description is in these words: \u201c Beginning at a stake, running thence north 500 chains, thence west 250 chains, thence south 500 chains, thence east 250 chains, to the first station.\u201d A stalce is an imaginary point. There is no telling where it is. So, the grant has no beginning, this \u2022description being void on account of its vagueness ; Massey v. Belisle, 2 Ire. Rep. 177. That was a stronger case than this ; for the \u201c stake \u201d at the beginning, was in Gillespie\u2019s line; the next \u201c stake \u201d was in Hay street; the third \u201c stake \u201d had no description, and the fourth \u201c stake \u201d was in Gillespie\u2019s line. The Court say, \u201caccording to this description, its location was impossible, because, in law, it covered no land.\u201d \u201c It is a settled rule of construction with us, that when stakes are mentioned in a deed simply, or with no other description but that of course and distance, they are intended to designate imaginary points. Every corner in this description is a stalce or imaginary point\u201c two are said to be in Gillespie\u2019s line, and one in Hay street, but in what part of Gillespie\u2019s line, or in what part of ITay street, the points are, can neither directly nor indirectly be discovered from this description.\u201d\nIn our case, the beginning is at a stake; in other words, at a jjoint, and the other corners are points at the end of course and distance; so we have points with no other description than that of course and distance, and the main point, or beginning has no other description whatever. There is error, and there must be a venire de novo.\nPee Oueiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.",
      "Moore and Bryan, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe on the demise of DOCTOR F. MANN v. WILLIAM H. TAYLOR.\nWhere the beginning call in a grant is for a stake, and all the rest of the description is course and distance, the location of the land is impossible, on account of the vagueness of tire description.\nActioN of ejbctMEnt, tried before Caldwell, Judge, at Spring Term, 1856, of Stanly Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff adduced title to the land in question, from the sovereign, by a grant from Gabriel Johnston, Esq., one \u00a9f the provincial Governors, to Arthur Dobbs, and then introduced testimony to establish a possession of seven years, under color of title.\nThe grant to Arthur Dobbs contained the following description, viz: \u201c A tract of land containing twelve thousand five hundred acres, being subdivided from tract No. 2, surveyed by Matthew Rowan, Esq., upon the branches of the great Pee Dee and Johnston Rivers, beginning at a stake, running thence north five hundred chains, thence west two hundred and fifty chains, thence south five hundred chains, and thence east two-hundred and fifty chains to the first station, and bounded by the tract R. to the south and east, and T. to the west.\u201d\n\u2022 The counsel for the defendant moved the Court to instruct the jury that the Dobbs grant was void for uncertainty, and could not be located, which was declined by his Honor, for which the defendant excepted.\nVerdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.\nNo counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.\nMoore and Bryan, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 280,
  "last_page_order": 281
}