Court Opinion

ID: 9582159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:23:14.74746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:29.857102
License: Public Domain

Justice Sharp
concurring:
In my view the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case should be affirmed, but not for the reasons advanced in the majority opinion. The instrument upon which plaintiffs base *601their claim to an easement over defendants’ lot is inartfully drawn; it is obviously the work of a layman, unlearned in the law of conveyancing. Notwithstanding, the purpose and intent of its signatories is clear, and the description of the “20-foot righta-way” they purported to establish is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it cannot be located on the ground.
■The easement is over property situated in the Mike Ebron subdivision in the Mansfield Section of Morehead township in Carteret County. It is 20 feet wide. It is bounded on the north by the A. & E. C. Railroad; on the east by the line of George Huntley (now Mansfield Mobile Homes); on the south by highway No. 70; and “on the west by Fred Ernul, Garfield Oliver and M. L. Mansfield line.” It is apparent that the three lot owners and their respective spouses, who signed the instrument under consideration, envisioned the western line of the 20-foot right-of-way as a new line for their property — an idea which regarded practicality rather than legal technicalities.
“The office of description is to furnish, and is sufficient when it does furnish, means of identifying the land intended to be conveyed.” Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley, 215 N.C. 615, 620, 2 S.E. 2d 889, 892; accord, Lane v. Coe, 262 N.C. 8, 136 S.E. 2d 269; Light Co. v. Waters, 260 N.C. 667, 133 S.E. 2d 450. To lay off the right-of-way in question a surveyor would need only to establish the Huntley line and the points where it intersects the rights-of-way of the railroad and the highway. Beginning at the latter point he would run westerly 20 feet with the highway; thence northerly, a line parallel with Huntley to the railroad’s right-of-way; thence easterly, with the railroad 20 feet to Huntley’s line; thence southerly, with Huntley to the beginning. Prima facie, this would be no insurmountable — or even difficult —surveying problem.
When Mansfield, plaintiff Sutton’s predecessor in title, plaintiff Oliver, and defendants Ernul executed the instrument which they labeled a “Rightaway Deed” they had no thought of dedicating a 20-foot public thoroughfare. Far from it: Oliver and Mansfield were endeavoring to insure for themselves and their successors in title, and any members of the public who had business with them, “for now and forevermore,” uninterrupted access to the landlocked lots which they had purchased from the Ernuls. At that time, 19 December 1964, defendants Ernul were acknowledging their obligation to provide means of access *602to the landlocked lots which they had sold Oliver and Mansfield. In short, all parties to the agreement were attempting to forestall the very situation which has produced this lawsuit.
The statement in the ninth headnote of Hine v. Blumenthal, 289 N.C. 537, 80 S.E. 2d 458, which is quoted in the opinion of the Court of Appeals (9 N.C. App. 221, 223, 175 S.E. 2d 618, 619), is a correct statement of the law applicable to this case. However, the excerpt from the Hine opinion, which the Court of Appeals also quoted, is completely irrelevant and confusing. It refers to the rule applicable to the sale of lots in a subdivision by reference to a map showing dedicated streets or highways. As the majority opinion points out, the record here discloses no map and no sales with reference to a map. According to my understanding, it was to clear up any confusion caused by the inclusion of the inapplicable excerpt from Hine that we allowed defendants’ petition for certiorari.
I concur fully in the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the right-of-way agreement “if proven over defendants’ denial,” is sufficient to establish a 20-foot easement extending along the Huntley line between the railroad and the highway. If the agreement be proven, any discussion of a way by necessity is beside the point. If it is not established, I agree that plaintiffs would be entitled to a way of necessity.
Chief Justice Bobbitt joins in this concurring opinion.