{
  "id": 8685135,
  "name": "GEORGE HINCHEY v. JAMES W. NICHOLS and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hinchey v. Nichols",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "66",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 66"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Jones, 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8682462
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/49/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Jones, 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        11277243
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Jones, 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        8682462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/49/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Jones, 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        11277243
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0322-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 4827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0384873550735243e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9073038621170578
    },
    "sha256": "7765f693c2232e05e0c8e9f59cace9e7dd405a1ab3c4f5bd9a683d169b2dc7bc",
    "simhash": "1:c2318b65e802afac",
    "word_count": 852
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE HINCHEY v. JAMES W. NICHOLS and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaesoN, C. J.\nThe plaintiff claims a tract of land described as follows, in the grant (1789) and mesne conveyances : \u201c A tract of land containing one hundred and seventy-three acres, lying and being in our county of Wilkes, on a big branch of Luke Lee\u2019s creek, beginning at or near the path that crosses the said branch that goes from Crane\u2019s to Sutton\u2019s, on a stake, running west twenty-eight chains and fifty links to a white oak in Miller\u2019s line,\u201d and so all around calling for stakes at every corner.\n\u201cA big branch of Luke Lee\u2019s creek,\u201d snpposes several big brandies. Which big branch; is left indefinite. If an indefinite description will admit of comparison, the next description, \u201c a stake at or near the path, that crosses the said branch, that goes from Crane\u2019s to Sutton\u2019s,\u201d is more indefinite. We are not told on which side of the branch this stake or point was fixed ; nor are we told whether it is ten, fifty, one hundred yards, or any other distance from the branch. So the description is fatally defective, and it cannot be made definite by parol evidence, for that would be to make a beginning corner, and not to find a corner, by fitting the description to the thing, for nothing is described. The cases, Archibald v. Davis, 5 Jones, 322; Mann v. Taylor, 4 Jones, 274, cited by the defendant\u2019s counsel, dispose of the question.\nHad \u201c the white oak in Miller\u2019s line\u201d been identified, the description may have been helped out, and the beginning corner found by nursing the lines, but unfortunately for the plaintiff, neither the white oak or Miller\u2019s line can be found. So that passes for nothing; and we have no description by which the land can be identified, and must come to the conclution that the surveyor made the plat on which the grant issued without any actual survey, and without going into the woods at all to mark any corner, or fix any memorial by which the land can be located. Error.\nPkk Curiam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaesoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Furohes, for appellant.",
      "JPolk <\u00c9 Armfield, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE HINCHEY v. JAMES W. NICHOLS and others.\nWhere, in a grant from the State, a tract of land is described as f olloW: \u201ca tract of land containing 173 acres, lying and being in our county of Wilkes, on a big branch of Luke Lee\u2019s creek, begining at or near the path that crosseslthe said branch, that goes from Cranes\u2019 to Sutton\u2019s, on a stake, running West 28 chains, 50 links to a White Oak, in Miller\u2019s line, then North 60 chains to a stake, then East 28 chains 50 links to a stake, then South 60 chains, to the begining,\u201d and no evidence being offered to show the location of Miller\u2019s line, or of the white oak referred to: It was held, that the description is fatally defective, and cannot be made sufficiently definite by part testimony.\n{Archibald v. Davis, 5 Jones, 322; Mann v. Taylor, 4 Jones, 274, cited and approved.)\nCivil action, in the nature of ejectment, tried before Cloud, J., at Special Term, 1874, Wiuces Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff claimed the land in controversy under a grant from the State to one Globber in 1789, and by mesne conveyances through various persons, to himself.\nThe description in the grant, and the said conveyances, is as follows: \u201c A tract of land containing one hundred and seventy-three acres, lying and being in our county of Wilkes, on a big branch of Luke Lee\u2019s creek, beginning at or near the path that crosses the said branch that goes from Crane\u2019s to Sutton\u2019s, on a stake, running west twenty-eight chains, fifty links, to a white oak in Miller\u2019s line; then north sixty chains to a stake, then east twenty-eight clains, fifty links, to a stake; then south sixty chains to the beginning.\u201d\nNo evidence was offered on the trial as to the location of Miller\u2019s line, or the white oak, but the plaintiff claims a point on the said path as his beginning, and then the courses and distances called for in the grant and deeds. Evidence was offered tending to establish the point claimed, to be the beginning corner. The plaintiff* proved by himself and two other witnesses, that two old men, now dead, one of them a surveyor, had pointed out the point claimed by the plaintiff as his beginning, as the beginning of plaintiff\u2019s land.\nThe defendant requested the Court to charge the jury, that as the white oak, in Miller\u2019s line, nor the line itself, nor any natural boundary, or marked boundary of the said tract, could be located or identified, as a mere matter of law, no land could be recovered under these conveyances. His Honor declined so to instruct the jury, and charged them that \u201cif they were satisfied the plaintiff had located the land, then they should return a verdict for the plaintiff.\nThe defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff', and the Court thereupon rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant appealed.\nFurohes, for appellant.\nJPolk <\u00c9 Armfield, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0066-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 78
}