Kanawha Hardwood Co. v. Waldo

Hoxe, J. Section 1748 of Eevisal 1905 provides in effect that any one, claiming land under certain grants or patents, considering himself aggrieved by the issuance of any grant or patent to any other person since the year 1776, against law or obtained by false suggestion, surprise, or fraud, may bring his action in the Superior Court of the county in which such land may he, for the purpose of having said grant repealed or vacated, etc. In section 419, Eevisal, being title YII, Civil Procedure, subject Yenue, it is provided: That' actions for the recovery of real property or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such right or interest and for injuries thereto, shall be tried in the county in which the subject of the action or some part thereof is situate. The Ee-visal, enacted at the same session of the Legislature, is properly considered one and the same statute, and is subject, particularly those portions which are in pari materia, to the well-recognized rules of construction: “That in order to determine the true intent of the Legislature, the particular clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.” - And again, “Statutes should be so construed, if possible, as to give effect to all of the clauses and provisions.” Black Int. Laws, p. 166. These rules are in accord with well-considered decisions here and elsewhere (Rodgers v. Bell, 156 N. C., 385; S. v. Lewis, 142 N. C., 626; Winslow v. Morton, 118 N. C., 491; Simonton v. Lanier, 71 *198 N. C., 498), and applied to tbe present case, fully support tbe ruling made by bis Honor. From a perusal of tbe pleadings, it appears tbat tbe allegations of fraud and false suggestion involve. one and tbe same transaction, affecting eacli and all of tbe grants, tbe subject of tbis litigation, and tbe cause comes well witbin tbe provision of 412, tbat actions for tbe determination, in any form, of a right or interest in real .estate shall be bad in tbe county “where tbe subject of tbe action or some part thereof is situate” (Thames v. Jones, 97 N. C., 126), leaving section 1748 to control in cases where there are separate transactions affecting distinct pieces of property lying wholly in different counties. There is no error, and tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is affirmed. No error.