NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-2 (2026)
Vagueness of description not to invalidate
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 39
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No deed or other writing purporting to convey land or an interest in land shall be declared void for vagueness in the description of the thing intended to be granted by reason of the use of the word "adjoining" instead of the words "bounded by," or for the reason that the boundaries given do not go entirely around the land described: Provided, it can be made to appear to the satisfaction of the jury that the grantor owned at the time of the execution of such deed or paper-writing no other land which at all corresponded to the description contained in such deed or paper-writing. (1891, c. 465, s. 2; Rev., s. 948; C.S., s. 992.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1944–1955 · leading case: Brown v. Hurley, 90 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. 1955).
Brown v. Hurley, 90 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. 1955). “G.S. 39-2. Parol evidence to identify the land sued for and to fit it to the description contained in the paper writing offered as evidence of title was admissible.”
Peel v. . Calais, 31 S.E.2d 440 (N.C. 1944). “Subsequent opinions of this Court, applying the principles enunciated in the Perry case, supra, and the proviso of the statute, G. S., 39-2, O. S., 992, have established well-recognized rules controlling decision as to the sufficiency of parol evidence offered in aid of an…”
Holloman v. Davis, 78 S.E.2d 143 (N.C. 1953). “If the land intended to be conveyed is not identifiable from the words of the deed, aided by extrinsic evidence explanatory of the terms used, or by reference to another instrument, the deed is inoperative.” 16 A. J. 584. For the purpose of identifying land described in a deed…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.