Edwards v. . Benbow

Seawell, J. The appellant asks the Court two questions: Were the descriptions in the various deeds introduced by plaintiff sufficient without other proof to identify the land in dispute and to justify the court in directing the verdict for the plaintiff? Was there sufficient evidence offered by the plaintiff to require the court to submit the issues tendered by defendant as to possession ? 1. The appellant insists that to recover it was necessary for the plaintiff, as in ejectment, to show by some evidence dehors the deeds that the descriptions therein fitted the lands he claimed, and, failing this, contends that the descriptions in the deeds are too variant and vague to connect him with the common source and show title. As to the first proposition the defendant failed to allege or offer evidence of any boundaries under which he claimed, whether variant from or identical with those in defendant’s description, but in the pleadings joined issue with the plaintiff on claim of title under the latter’s description and suffered loss of any vantage ground he may have had by .the introduction by plaintiff of the pertinent allegations of the complaint admitted in the answer. No question was raised requiring the location of boundaries necessitating the intervention of the jury in that respect. Tatem v. Paine, 11 N. C., 71; Brooks v. Woodruff, 185 N. C., 288, 116 S. E., 724; Lee v. Barefoot, 196 N. C., 107, 144 S. E., 547. We are of opinion that the descriptions in the several deeds are sufficiently identical in character to raise an inference of identity in the land conveyed, running hack to defendant’s original title, and justify the instruction given to the jury. *468 Tbe record discloses no evidence of possession by the defendant and the issue tendered by him was properly refused. We find in the record No error.