The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-09-13
al. appellants. Affirmed. Brown r

cutting timber on land, appeal from
restraining order and Injunction nre-
venting cutting.
1. The Act of 1901, chapter 66S
relative to timber lands was intended
to safeguard the rights of litigants and
preserve timber on lands in litigation
and under its provisions, it is the duty
or the judge, when he has been salts
fed that plaintiffs claim is bona fide
and that he can show an apparent
title to the timber, to continue in.
junction until final determination of
title.
2. Description by name, where
lands have known name, is sufficient.
s. A deed in which the land is
described as lying and being on the
south side of Pamlico River and the
south side of Blount Creek, contain
ing rs acres, more or less; it being
the same land that James Peele con-
veyed to Hiram Edgerton by deed.
which deed will more fully show
courses and distances, reference be-
ing had to the said deed, and deed by
Hiram Edgerton to William E.
Shaw" is not void for uncertainty OF
description. The deeds referred to
are admissible as proving location. The
fact that they were not offered does
not COIlpcl ulSSOlutlOIl Ol lllJullC-
ton, title on such hearings not being
required to be proved with the strict
ness and certainty necessary upon
trial.
Nj. l.. johnson ct al, appellants, vs..
Geo. T. Wescott Affirmed. Brown. j.
Proceedings under entry laws under
Acts of 1903, chapter PIP. Plaintiffs
moved the court that on the face Of
the record the defendant, 0he entry
mani should open the case and show
cause why his entry should not be
declared void. On refusal Of court
to grant the motion and judgment
dismissing the proceedings, the pro-
testing parties, the plaintiffs, appealed.
Held. That while the act properly
requires the owner of an entry to as
sumo the burden of making out a
prima facie case that the land is sub
ject to entry, admissions by the plain
tiffs in the record that they were I'M
able to show any paper writing to
any person for any part of the land
covered by the entry except by three
deeds failing to disclose any connec-
ton of the plaintiffs with the land and
no possession by any person except
during the years 1S74-1876 is fatal
to recovery.
John L. Hinton VS.. Acorn Moore, APP
peIlant. Affirmed. HOke, y.
Action of ejectment. Evidence by
plaintiff. none by defendant. The court
charged the jury that the affirmative
of all the issues was on the plaintiff
and he must satisfy the jury by the
greater weight of the testimony as to
his allegations on each and all of the
issues and that if the jury believed
the evidence, they should answer the
nd
tiff excepted. Verdict for plaintiff and
Judgment and defendant appealed.
There We're other exceptions to evil
dence.
Plaintiff claimed land in two ways
(a) First, deed of trust from J. l..
Williams to c. Guirkin; (b) deed
from Nj. L. Guirkin, administrators of
c. Guirkin. Second, (a) deed of trust
from j. l.. Williams to c. l.. Hinton:
OBJ deed from G. l.. Hinton to plain
tiff
Held. 1. That, even if there has
been no proper foreclosure of the
Guirkin deed of trust. the deed from
G. l.. Hinton, trustee, If valid, would
convey an equitable interest in the
property which would give plaintiff
the right to recover against wrong
doer.
2. A description in a deed as "66
acres of land, more or less, lying on
Mill Pond Road and being the same
set over to him in the division of his
fathers land" is sufficiently definite.
Such language is also of a character to
permit parol evidence in aid of the
8. Parol evidence tending to show
that plaintiffs grantor had decided
land to another party prior to deed
to plaintiff and that deed had been
lost before registration, is not admissi-
bic, even between the parties, except
it be declared on the ground that it
tends to show that plaintiffs grantor
had no title at the time he attempted
to convey; but, as plaintiff was
purchaser for value. he is protected
by the provisions of the Conner act
that as against creditors and
purchasers for value no deed shall
avail save from registration.
VIM Pritchard ct al VS.. G. III. Mitch
ell ct al. appellants.
/. Where there is a miSjoinder of
parties plaintiff, the party not having
may anticipate being taxed
with costs by reason Of misjoinder and
submit to a non-Sut.
2. Under laws of 1898, chapter 453
section /. providing that upon execu-
ton of voluntary deed of trust or
deed of assignment for the benefit
Of creditors all debts due become pay
able at once, the indorsers of note
payable at date later than the sub
5equent assignment of the principal
debtor are liable to the contingency
Of his becoming insolvent, upon which
they become jointly responsible with
their principal.
VIM. Joyner VS.. j. c. Early, appel
ant. Affirmed. Brown, j.
Civil action for recovery of mule.
From judgment for plaintiff, defend
ant appealed.
Held. 1. That in an action of claim
and delivery, an amendment to the
alleging fraud. misrepresen-
tation and deceit, is in the sound dis
erection of the court and not review
able; and that such amendment is in
no sense the introduction of a new
cause of action.
2. Under such allegations plaintiffI
may sue either for damages for al |
legged false warranty or repudiate the
trade and sue to recover the speclhc
property. Il
8. The offer of defendant to testify
to a conversation had with him and