73 S.E. 213 | N.C. | 1911
The entire case on appeal is as follows:
This is an action of ejectment against Taylor, the judgment debtor, by Beard, judgment creditor, the grantee of the purchaser at the execution sale.
The court submitted the fourth issue, set out in the record, and charged upon the same as follows:
"The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence in this case you will answer the fourth issue `No.' The court is of the opinion, and so charges you, that the description in that deed from the sheriff to the party under whom the plaintiff claims is so vague and insufficient that it does not convey any property at all, or any part thereof. So the court charges you that if you believe all the evidence you answer the fourth issue `No.'"
To this charge the plaintiff Beard excepts — or, to be more specific, to the part, "The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence in this case, you will answer the fourth issue `No.'"
Also to the part: "The court is of the opinion, and so charges you, that the description in that deed from the sheriff to the party under whom the plaintiff claims is so vague and insufficient that it does not convey any property at all, or any part thereof."
The plaintiff Beard excepts to that part of the judgment in this action on said fourth issue declaring that plaintiff is not the owner of the eleven acres or any part thereof.
The following statement appears in the record:
"Calls of Sheriff's Deed of 11-Acre Tract: Also another tract (442) of land owned by W. M. Taylor, containing about eleven acres, where he now lives, excepting three acres including house and barn, which was allotted him as his homestead, the remaining eight acres or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy said execution."
There was a judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed. *348 The case on appeal does not disclose what evidence was introduced on the trial, nor does it set out or identify the deed referred to, and as the action of the judge is presumed to be correct, we must affirm the judgment.
If, however, the exception is intended to present the correctness of a ruling by the judge that the description under the heading, "Calls of sheriff's deed for eleven-acre tract," is void for uncertainty, we would hold that there is no error.
If the description had stopped at the word "homestead," it would have been sufficient, but the additional clause makes it impossible to say what part of the eight acres is intended to be conveyed.
Cathey v. Lumber Co.,
No error. *349