Case ID: nc_58/html/0029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PeaesoN, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DANIEL McDIARMID AND OTHERS against JOSEPH McMILLAN.
    An entry of a tract of land, as being “in Richmond county, on the south side of Muddy creek, beginning at or near the ford of the creek, where the Rockingham road crosses,” without any further indications of its locality, was Held to be too vague and uncertain, to give it priority as to an individual claiming under another entry and grant.
    Cause removed from the Court of Equity of-Richmond county.
    In the year 1850, the defendant made an entry of a tract of land, (a part of which is that in controversy,) which he had surveyed hi February, 1851, and, in January, 1853, he paid the purchase money, and took a grant from the State. Shortly after obtaining the grant, the defendant entered into possession, and had the same in possession at the time the plaintiff’s hill was filed.
    In December, 1852, the plaintiffs made eight entries of land in the same vicinity, the first of which is as follows:— “Daniel McDiarmid and Daniel Turner, enter six hundred and forty acres of land in Richmond county, on the south side of Big Muddy creek, beginning at, or near the ford of the creek where the Rockingham road crosses.” The seven other entries are described as “adjoining the first and each other.” On the 27th of November, 1854, they caused these entries to he surveyed, and on the 27th of December, in the same year, they paid the purchase money and took out a grant, embracing the said eight entries, and covering a part of the land contained in .tbe above mentioned grant of the defendant.— The plaintiffs insist in their bill, that the defendant’s entry having lapsed, became void as to their junior entry, and that the grant which he obtained thereon, was of no validity in equity, and they pray that the defendant shall convey to them the title to so much of the premises as is covered by their grant, and also included in his grant.
    The defendant, in his answer, alleges that the lands in controversy, had been granted previously to one Alexander McMillan, and to one David Allison, and that it was not subject to entry when the plaintiff made his entry, and that his grant, founded thereon, cannot be upheld in equity. There are several other matters urged against the plaintiff’s equity, and, in support of defendant’s title, but, as the opinion of the Court is based on a consideration altogether independent of these views, it is deemed unnecessary to notice them, or the testimony put in by both sides, in relation to them.
    
      McKay and Kelly, for the plaintiff's.
    
      Ashe, for the defendant.
   PeaesoN, C. J.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief, because their entries are too vague to amount to notice, or give them any priority; Monroe v. McCormick, 6 Ired. Eq. 85, is decisive. In that case, which is founded upon Harris v. Ewing, 1 Dev. and Bat. Eq. 369; Johnston v. Shelton, 4 Ired. Eq. 85, it is held “where one makes an entry so vague as not to identify the land, such entry does not amount to notice, and does not give any priority of right, as against another individual who makes an entry, has it surveyed, and takes out a grant. By a liberal construction of the law, such entries are not void as against the State. It is not material to the State what vacant land is granted; but such entries are not allowed to interfere with the rights of other citizens, and are not susceptible of being notice to any one, because they have no identity. It would be taking advantage of his own wrong, for one to make a vague entry, and afterwards, take from another, land which he had, in the mean time, entered and paid for.” “Where an entry is vague, it acquires no priority until it is made certain by a survey. The good sense of this principle'will strike every one as soon as it is suggested.”

The first entry of the plaintiffs, on which the other seven turn as a point, is in these words, “ Daniel McDiarmid and Daniel Turner, enter 640 acres of land, in Richmond county, on the south side of Big Muddy creek, beginning at or near the ford of the creek, where the Rockingham road crosses.” Admit that this reference to “the ford,” on the creek, fixes a point to begin at, with sufficient certainty, what course is then to be taken ? up or down the creek ? if off from it, at what angle? what shape is the land to lie in? a square? a parallelogram? or some irregular figure? No adjacent tracts are called for, and nothing whatever whereby it can be made certain. If this conclusion required authority, it is furnished by the case of Johnston v. Shelton, supra. There the description was “ 640 acres of land beginning on the line dividing the counties of Haywood and Macon, at a point at, or near, Lowe’s Bear-pen, on the Hog-back Mountain, and running various courses for compliment,” and the Court admitting that the reference to Lowe’s Bear-pen, on the Hog-back mountain, in the dividing line of the two counties, fixed a point to begin, with sufficient certainty, held the entry to be too vague, “for it. cannot be told whether the land is to be laid off'by running east or west on the county line, nor how far in either direction, neither by course or distance, or natural objects, or other lines, or any other thing.”

Horton v. Cook, 1 Jones’ Eq. 272, was cited for the plaintiff's. That case, however, is distinguished from the cases cited above, in the opinion of the Court, on the ground, that the beginning corner was fixed at a certain tree, in a certain line of another tract, and “it mentions the head waters of the creek on which, and the tracts of land, belonging to other persons, between which it is located.” '

Without reference to the other questions, raised by the pleadings, we are of opinion that the bill must be dismissed, because of the vagueness and uncertainty of the plaintffs’ entries.

PeR Cueiam, Bill dismissed.