Case ID: nc_197/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stacy, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARY JANE WALKER and L. N. WALKER v. APPOLLAS OWENS AND MARVIN ROBERTSON.
    (Filed 11 September, 1929.)
    Ejectment O b — Paper-writing which is not deed, will, lease, nor contract specifically enforceable is inadmissible as evidence in ejectment.
    A paper-writing expressing that the deceased signer is to let O. have certain described property at the signer’s death, O. to keep all buildings in good condition, and at the death of O. “this property goes back” to the signer’s estate is inoperative as a deed, as it contains no apt word of conveyance and not being under seal, or as a will or as a lease or contract specifically enforceable, and will not be received in evidence in an action, in ejectment.
    Appeal by defendants from Cowper, Special Judge, at April Term, 1929, of Cubeituck.
    Civil action in ejectment.
    It is admitted tbat both parties claim title to tbe land in controversy nnder Jordan Poyner, deceased. Tbe plaintiffs offered evidence of a fee-simple title in themselves and rested. Tbe defendants then offered tbe following paper-writing, registered in Book 25, page 63, of tbe registry of Currituck County, as tbe only evidence of their right to bold tbe property during tbe life of A. A. Owens:
    “Feb. 10th, 1922. This is to certify tbat I, Jordan Poyner, am to let A. A. Owens have tbe following property at my death. (Description, not in dispute.) A. A. Owens is to keep all buildings in good condition. At bis death this property goes back to Jordan Poyner’s estate.
    (Signed) Jordan Poyner.”
    Objection having been made, tbe instrument was excluded on tbe ground tbat it conveys no title to tbe land described therein. Exception by tbe defendants.
    Verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs, from which tbe defendants appeal, assigning as error 'the ex^áüsicir-cx-tliujjaper-writing offered by them as evidence of their title. '
    
    
      Chester Morris and Ehñnghaus & Hall for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Thos. J. Marhham for defendants.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

Tbe paper-writing in question was properly excluded as evidence. It is not a deed, for it contains no apt words of conveyance, and is not under seal. Fisher v. Owens, 132 N. C., 686, 44 S. E., 369. It is not a will, nor was it offered as sucb for probate. Neither is it a lease or contract specifically enforceable. It conveys no interest to A. A. Owens who claims a life estate in the property under said instrument.

No error.