Carteret County NcArchives Court.....Silas Lupton, Ida L. Lupton V. 1895
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a January 8, 2010, 9:13 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1895

Ida L. Lupton v. Silas Lupton
September Term, 1895

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 parole evidence was admissible to identify 
the boat as the one in which the husband had a half interest.

Special 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 Boykin, 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. N. J. Rouse, for defendant (appellant)

[NC Supreme Court]
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 evidence and heard oral testimony as to the identity of the 
boat, and defendant excepted and appealed.

The evidence was competent. Spivey v. Grant, 96 NC, 214; Phillips v. Hooker, 
Phil. Eq., 194. These cases are distinguishable from Blakely v. Patrick, 67 
NC, 40, where there were more than ten buggies, and the ten could not be 
identified.

No error and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/carteret/court/silaslup1280wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 2.6 Kb