There was error iu the ruling of the'court that the description was too vague and uncertain to be explained by parol testimony. Perry v. Scott, 109 N. C., 374.
New Trial.
Wilkins v. Jones, 119 N.C. 95 (1896)
Sept. 1896
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
119 N.C. 95
HENRY WILKINS, et al. v. J. C. JONES, et al.
Action to Recover Land — Vague and Indefinite Description — Parol Evidence May Explain, When'.
A description of land contained in a deed as follows: ‘'Thirty-acres of land, situated in Stony Creek township, adjoining the lands of W. J. and JB.,” is not too vague and indefinite to be explained by parol testimony.
Civil aotioN, to recover land, tried before Boykin, J., and a jury, at Spring Term, 1896, of Nash Superior Court. The usual issues were submitted, and as the main issue depended upon the validity of a certain mortgage through which defendants claimed title, his Honor held that the description of the land was so vague and indefinite as to render the instrument void, and that it could not be aided by parol testimony.
The defendants excepted and appealed from the judgment rendered in the verdict for plaintiffs. The description in the mortgage was as follows : “ Thirty (30) acres of land, *96situated in Stony Creek township, adjoining the lands of the late James Woodinff, James Carter Jones and Richard 'Barnes.”
Mr. B. B. Massenburg, for plaintiffs.
Messrs. B. II. Bunn and Jacob Battle, for defendants (appellants).