Opinion
(July Term, 1816.)
No very strict certainty in the description of lands in a declaration in ejectment is necessary to warrant the writ of possession. Hence it was held that a description in the following terms was sufficient for that purpose; "one tract of land, containing 150 acres, lying and being in the county of Martin, and state aforesaid, in the low grounds of Roanoke, on the south side, it being part of 350 acres granted to J. M., 7 Nov., 1730, beginning at a sycamore tree, supposed to be Colonel C. P.'s line, and so extending out and in, according to courses of patent aforementioned, to conclude and make out the above said 150 acres, with the appurtenances."
EJECTMENT, in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict; and the question reserved was whether the premises were sufficiently described in the declaration to authorize the issuing of a writ of possession. The description is as follows: "One tract of land, containing 150 acres, lying and being in the county of Martin and State aforesaid, in the low grounds of Roanoke River, on the south side; it being part of 350 acres, according to contents of patent granted to John McCaskey, 7 November, 1730, beginning at a sycamore tree, supposed to be Colonel Cullen (426) Pollock's line, and so extended out and in, according to courses of patent aforementioned, to conclude and make out the above said 150 acres, with the appurtenances."
Browne for plaintiff.
— We are of opinion that a writ of possession ought to issue, and that the description is sufficiently certain for that purpose.
NOTE. — See Osborne v. Woodson, 2 N.C. 24; Godfrey v. Cartwright, 15 N.C. 487; Huggins v. Ketchum, 20 N.C. 421.