Case Name: IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1895-09
Citations: 117 N.C. 30
Docket Number: 
Parties: IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 30–31

Head Matter:
IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON.
Description— Parol Evidence to Assist Description— Identification.
Where the assignment to a widow of her year’s support from her husband’s estate included “one-half of boat,” and it was proved in an action relating to the title thereto that her husband was interested in but one boat; Held, that such assignment was not void, and parol evidence was admissible to identify the boat as the one in which the husband had a half interest.
Spboial PROCEEDING, begun before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Carteret county, for the sale for partition of a boat, described in the petition. One issue, as to title, was raised, and being transferred to Term for trial, was heard before Boyhin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1894, of Carteret Superior Court. These facts sufficiently appear in the decision of Chief Justice Faircloth. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appealed.
Messrs. Simmons, Gibbs <& Pearsall, for plaintiff.
Mr. JF. J. Rouse, for defendant (appellant).

Opinion:
Faircloth, C. J.:
The plaintiff, Ida L. Lupton, filed a petition for sale and division of the proceeds of a certain boat, "Dolly," alleging that she and defendant were tenants in common of the boat, which was denied by defendant. In the assignment of plaintiff's year's allowance from her former husband's estate, one of the items was "one-half of boat," and defendant insisted that that part of the assignment was void for want of better description and that no title passed. It was proved that the boat "Dolly" was the only boat in which her husband had any interest at his death. His Honor admitted the assignment in evi dence and h.eard oral testimony as to the identity of the boat, and defendant excepted and appealed.
The evidence was competent. Spivey v. Grant, 96 N. C., 214; Phillips v. Hooker, Phil. Eq., 194. These cases are distinguishable from Blakely v. Patrick, 67 N. C., 40, where there were more than ten buggies, and the ten could not be identified.
No error and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.