Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 N.C. 211

95 S.E 361

Blanton v. . Boney

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 20, 1918

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1918-03-20

Appeal by defendant from .Stacy, J., at the August Term, 1917 of DupliN. This is an action to try the title to 40 acres of land, and to recover rents and profits, the plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of five-sevenths of the land as the heirs of Abram Blanton, Sr., and admitting that the defendant is the owner of two-sevenths by purchase from two of said heirs.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1918-03-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1980

5 state decisions

3019181920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

AlleN, J.

¶1 The principal contention of the defendant in the Superior Court was that there was a division by parol of the lands of Abratn Blanton among his heirs, and, as conveyances had been executed in recognition of this partition, that the plaintiffs could not now claim the two shares set apart to the two children under whom the defendant claims, but the fact as to the parol division has been found against the defendant by the jury, and no exception in the record presents the question of the effect of the conveyances on the claim and title of the plaintiffs.

¶2 The description of the land in the will is certainly sufficient to pass the land covered by the dwelling house and the old field, but, if altogether void for uncertainty, the title of the plaintiffs would not be affected, because they are the heirs of Blanton, and if no land is described in the will, they would take as heirs as in ease of intestacy.

¶3 No error.

/175/nc/211 · .json · Public domain