Cody v. . England

Winborne, J. While the plaintiffs bring forward and press for error numerous exceptive assignments, we think it appropriate to advert only to the exceptions to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict and to the judgment. These are well taken and must be sustained. The controversy is one of location of the boundaries of the land in question, rather than of title to such lands as are covered by the grants under which the respective parties claim. Such title is not controverted. The second and sixth issues relate to location. The answer to the third, *609 fourth, seventh and eighth issues are dependent upon the answers to the second and sixth. Plaintiffs attack the verdict for that the answers to the issues relating to location of the lands of plaintiffs and of defendant are inconsistent and contradictory, and too uncertain and ambiguous to support the judgment and dispose of the matters in controversy. They attack the judgment for uncertainty. As expressed in many decisions of this Court, the law is that a verdict must be certain, responsive to the issues submitted and should establish facts sufficient to enable the court to proceed to judgment and dispose of the matters in controversy. Hilliard v. Outlaw, 92 N. C., 266; Emery v. R. R., 102 N. C., 209, 9 S. E., 139; McAdoo v. R. R., 105 N. C., 140, 11 S. E., 316; Chapman-Hunt Co. v. Board of Education, 198 N. C., 111, 150 S. E., 713; Plotkin v. Bond Co., 200 N. C., 590, 157 S. E., 870. “A verdict finding matter uncertainly or ambiguous is insufficient, and no judgment should be given thereupon.” Crews v. Crews, 64 N. C., 536. This may arise from the answer to the issue being indefinite. Kornegay v. Kornegay, 109 N. C., 188, 13 S. E., 770; Howell v. Pate, 181 N. C., 117, 106 S. E., 454. If ambiguous in its terms, the ambiguity may sometimes be explained and the verdict interpreted by reference to and in connection with the pleadings, the evidence and the charge of the court. Howell v. Pate, supra; Kannan v. Assad, 182 N. C., 77, 108 S. E., 383; S. v. Snipes, 185 N. C., 743, 117 S. E., 500; S. v. Whitley, 208 N. C., 661, 182 S. E., 338. "When so construed, “if the true intent and meaning of the verdict is found to be doubtful, uncertain and ambiguous” a venire de novo should be granted. Donnell v. Greensboro, 164 N. C., 330, 80 S. E., 377; Sitterson v. Sitterson, 191 N. C., 319, 131 S. E., 641; Short v. Kaltman, 192 N. C., 154, 134 S. E., 425; McIntosh P. & P., 675. The verdict and judgment establishing the disputed boundaries should be so definite that the lines can be run in accordance therewith. Otherwise, the judgment would not sustain a plea of res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties, involving the same subject matter, but would only necessitate another suit to settle the same case. 9 C. J., 293, Boundaries, section 354. When tested by these principles, the verdict in the case in hand, interpreted by reference to the pleadings, facts in evidence, the court map, and the charge of the court, is contradictory, ambiguous and uncertain, and wholly insufficient to support the judgment. The jury has answered both the second issue, which relates to the location of the lands owned by the plaintiffs, and the sixth issue, as to the location of defendant’s land, in identical words : “By the red lines on the court map.” The red lines on the court map cover not only Grant 2684, which the plaintiffs own, but Grant 2609, which the defendant owns, as well as Entry 1087, *610 tbe ownership of which does not appear. Nothing else appearing, by the answer to the second issue, the jury has said that the location of plaintiffs’ land includes all the land within the red lines on the court map, and by the answer to the sixth issue, that the location of defendant’s land includes the same. Rut if this contradictory and inconsistent condition on the verdict did not exist, the testimony of the surveyor who put the red lines on the map, and another, shows that the red lines indicating the location of Grant 2684 as contended by defendant are not correctly placed on the map. The courses and distances of the red lines are not shown on the map. Resort to the calls of the grant does not supply the deficiency, for the defendant contends that the first call in this grant is not controlled by the course and distance given, but that a different course and distance should he applied to arrive at the point on which the natural object called for formerly stood. In the judgment below the verdict of the jury is apparently interpreted in relationship to the map to which the verdict refers. The map being devoid of certainty affords no basis for making certain the location of the lands in question and lends no support to the judgment. Other assignments are not considered. Since there must be a new trial the matters to which they relate may not recur. New trial.