Oxford v. . White

Merrimon, J., It, must be .conceded that the description of the JLgmd in .the complain^ is very indefinite and uncertain *527 iu its terms, but we think it may be rendered certain by an accurate survey, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of the maxim, id certain eat, qaocl ccrtnm reddi potest. If the data or indicia specified, however indefinite, are sufficient. to enable the surveyor to ascertain the particular land referred to, that is sufficient. The three hundred acres of land granted to Henry Reicl in 1872 are sufficiently described and located, and this is important. The land in question is one half of that tract, or “one hundred and fifty acres (of it), embracing the homo place of the late Samuel Reid, and lying on the north side or end of the aforesaid grant,” and its lines begin “at the throe black oaks (these are the beginning corner of the gran; named) of the old grant as aforesaid, and runs one hundred and twenty-seven poles west to a stake, (this is with the north line of the grant), thence southward in slightly diverging lines from the aforesaid black oaks and stake to points along the respective line, (that is with the lines of the grant north and south in the oast and west side of the land granted), then a line east and west, parallel with the south, (east and west'line), of the old grant aforesaid, so as to give and embrace within the lines thus described and to be ascertained, one hundred and fifty acres.” That is, to state it differently, the north line of the grant named, is the north line of the plaintiff's land, the east and west linos of the grant running south from its north line, are the lines of the plaintiff’s land to the points intersected by the plaintiff’s south line, which is parallel with the north line, lying far enough south to embrace one hundred and fifty acres in his tract, situate on the “ north side or end of the aforesaid grant.” The data given, though not very intelligently expressed, will enable an expert surveyor to locate the south line of the plaintiff’s land and ascertain its exact boundary. There is, in fact, certainty in the description of the land given, though not clearly seen. *528 The law, however, sees and upholds that certainty, and will make it manifest by a proper survey to be made under the order of the Court. This case is much like that of Stewart v. Salmonds, 74 N. C., 518; in which this Court held that “ twenty-nine acres to be cut off the north side of a tract of land designated, could be ascertained with mathematical precision, and decreed a specific performance of an award.” There is error. The judgment sustaining the demurrer must be reversed, and further proceedings had in the action according to law. To that end, let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court. It is so ordered.