Elliott, State v. Farrow, State v. Gaither v. Gibson Gardner v. Hall Gibbs v. Gibbs Gibson Gaither v. Glisson, State v. Gobble, Hedrick v. Gray, Cox v. Griffin v. Griffin Griffis v. McNeill Grissett v. Smith Grissett v. Smith Guess v. McCauley Gwynn, State v. Hall v. Gardner Hinson v. Huggins 104 Hodges, State v. Hogwood v Edwards 161 Holland v. Chandler 178 Hoover v. Thomas 279 Horan, State v. 565 Hudson, Beard v. 373 Huggins v. Hinson 9 Hughes, in re. 335 Hughes, Kingsbury v. 190 Hughes v. Pipkin 417 Hunter, Branch v. 199 563 Isler v. Whitfield 233 Israel v. Ivey Ivey, Israel v. 530 21 Johnson, McArthur v. 471 Johnson Chas., State v. 530 Johnson Wm., State v. 195 Johnson v. Crawford 348 488 Kearzey, State v. 167 Keeler v Newbern 175 Keith, Deaver v. 164 Kerr v. Elliott 297 King v. Little 514 Kingsbury v. Hughes 445 Kirkland v. Mangum 21 Lackey v. Miller 158 Lawson, State v. 502 Leak v. Moorman 29 Leak, State v. 365 Lindsey, State v. 322 Link v. Brooks 380 Lipscomb v. Cheek 376 Little, King v. 348 Little v. Hamilton 229 Little v. Martin 353 Long, Cherry v. 441 Love, Den v. 122 Ludwick, State v. 126 Lutz v. Yount 410 291 Macon, Shortridge v. 231 350 598 184 571 180 126 57 328 4 1 493 551 551 317 140 186 342 481 505 428 601 484 328 177 26 47 168 450 468 499 332 484 29 240 466 435 401 367 392 Miller, Lackey v. Parker v. Shannonhouse Neeley v. Craige N. C. R. R. Co., Benbow v. 421 Smith Dan'l, State v. Nutt, State v. 304 Sawyer, Wood v. 187 Sinclair, Barry v. 20 Smith Frank., State v. 209 Sowls, State v. 251 104 146 284 209 34 18 178 392 112 7 200 340 302 164 299 590 217 306 66 68 v. Rose v. Schlachter v. Sears v. Sowls v. Taylor v. Tisdale 41 558 v. Dan'l Smith 535 v. Frank Smith 211 v. Wilson 437 v. Wright 460 Stevenson, Askew v. 161 Stickney v. Cox 229 Thompson v. Matthews 441 Thorburn, Hall v. 231 Tisdale, State v. 571 Tucker, Brooks v. 545 140 98 502 Wash. Br. Co. Carrow v. 118 450 Weaver v. Parker 479 468 Whitfield, Isler v. 493 401 Whitfield v. Bodenhammer 302 491 Wiley v. Wiley 131 326 Wiley v. Worth 171 37 237 565 49 Williams, Burbank v. 134 Wilson, State v. 196 Winslow v. Fenner 447 Wood v. Sawyer 434 Wood v. Wood 108 Woodfin v. Sluder 20 Worth, Wiley v. 425 Wright, Bunting v. 473 Wright, State v. 338 543 453 406 520 146 151 508 220 340 302 237 486 288 495 525 98 112 371 Young v. Perry 222 Yount, Lutz v. 508 184 15 158 220 309 251. 538 200 171 295 486 549 367 ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Supreme Court of North Carolina, AT RALEIGH. JUNE TERM, 1866. Doe on the demise of WILLIAM H. BRANCH and others v. JAMES HUNTER and wife. Where a testator devised, to A, his "plantation between Burnt coat and Beaverdam swamp," to B, "all that portion of his Enfield tract of land lying north of the old road from Old Enfield to Halifax town," to others, "all the balance of his property, after paying debts," and afterwards cancelled the devise to A: Held, that although the description of the land given to B, would, per se, include that given to A, yet, inasmuch as when first written, the testator did not use it in this large sense, such sense could not be imposed upon it by the mere cancellation of the devise to A: held also, that the legal effect of such cancellation was to throw the land given to A, into the residue. Evidence, to show that a tract of land of a particular description, in a will, includes another tract having another description in such will, is competent. (The case President and Directors, &c., v. Norwood, Bus. Eq., 65, cited and ap proved.) EJECTMENT, tried before Saunders, J., at Fall Term, 1864, of Halifax Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed title under the will of John Branch, deceased; the tract in question being that described in the second clause, as follows: "Then I give to my daughter, Martha E. Bradford, the following negroes, viz., &c., also my plantation between Burnt coat and Beaverdam swamp.' The words in italics were afterwards erased, and cancelled "2 Branch v. Hunter. by the testator, who made a memorandum thereof, at the foot of the will, in his own handwriting. Upon the probate of the will the cancelled words were rejected by the court as part of the will, and the rest admitted to probate. The defendant claimed title to the land, under the following clause of the same will: "Then I give to my executors, in trust for the benefit of my daughter, Sally Hunter, &c., all that portion of my Enfield tract of land lying north of the old road leading from Old Enfield to Halifax town, together with," &c.; and offered evidence tending to show that the Enfield tract of land embraced the land in controversy. This evidence was objected to by the plaintiff, and rejected by the court. The court charged the jury that, although the clause devising to the executors in trust, &c., might have included the land in controversy, if there had been in the will, as originally written, no clause devising it to Mrs. Bradford, yet, that inasmuch as the land was not devised to the trustees before the cancellation, the will could not, after that, operate to convey the land. The defendant excepted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Appeal by the de fendant. Bragg and Batchelor, for the plaintiff. PEARSON, C. J. His Honor erred in rejecting the evidence tending to show that the Enfield tract of land embraced the land in controversy; see Institution for the Deaf, &c., v. Norwood, Bus. Eq., 65. For this reason, in considering the other question, it is to be assumed that the land in controversy was considered and treated by the testator, in his life time, as a part of the Enfield tract of land. We have then this case: The testator devises a part of |