From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

v. Heritage

Superior Court of North Carolina New Bern
Jul 1, 1804
3 N.C. 327 (N.C. Super. 1804)

Opinion

(July Term, 1804.)

Where a grant calls for a certain course and distance to A. B.'s line, thence a certain course and distance along his line, the second line is along the line of A. B., and not the course and distance called for.

HERITAGE had sold lands to the plaintiff, and covenanted for the goodness of the title. He had in his deed described the lands by a line of a certain course and distance to A. B.'s line, thence a certain course and distance with his line to, etc. The course and distance of these two lines included land which belonged to another, but not if A. B.'s line be considered as the boundary.


The line of A. B. is to be considered as the boundary of the land sold by Heritage. He did not sell any beyond that, and of course did not sell to the plaintiff the land he says he did. If that land has been recovered from the plaintiff, this covenant does not subject defendant to pay for the value of it.

Verdict and judgment accordingly.

NOTE. — See Smith v. Murphey, ante, 183, and the references in the note thereto.

Cited: Dula v. McGhee, 34 N.C. 333; Bowen v. Gaylord, 122 N.C. 821.


Summaries of

v. Heritage

Superior Court of North Carolina New Bern
Jul 1, 1804
3 N.C. 327 (N.C. Super. 1804)
Case details for

v. Heritage

Case Details

Full title:v. HERITAGE

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina New Bern

Date published: Jul 1, 1804

Citations

3 N.C. 327 (N.C. Super. 1804)

Citing Cases

DULA v. McGHEE

This is established by many decisions. Miller v. White, 3 N.C. 160; ________ v. Heritage, 3 N.C. 327;…