after stating the case: We have given the record and the exceptions noted careful consideration, and find no error presented to plaintiff’s prejudice. The description contained in the deed from Thomas Grimes to the plaintiff was sufficiently definite to permit the reception of parol evidence to fit the description to the property. Hinton v. Moore, 139 N. C., 44; Perry v. Scott, 109 N. C., 374; Euliss v. McAdams, 108 N. C., 507. And it was further competent to show by parol testimony, that the father of plaintiff and grantor in the deed had constituted the thirty acres in controversy as a part of the B. IT. Taylor place for the purpose of the deed, and that the said thirty acres was included within the descriptive terms of the instrument. Woods v. Woods,

*251 55 N. C., 420; Rodgers and wife v. Buckhorne, 58 N. C., 301; Bradshaw v. Ellis, 22 N. C., 20; Dodson v. Green, 15 N. C., 488.

In tbe charge of his Honor the rights of the parties were properly made to rest, chiefly, on whether the land in controversy was included in the deed from Thomas Grimes to plaintiff, and the subsequent deeds passing the interest to plaintiff under and by virtue of the foreclosure proceedings. This being true, and the defense having been made to rest chiefly on' the assumption that plaintiff was at one time the owner of the land and had sold it to defendant, and those under whom defendant claimed, many of the exceptions noted become irrelevant, as they were made to adverse rulings of the Court, in the effort on the part of plaintiff' to show title in himself. We think every right or claim available on the evidence to plaintiff was fairly submitted under the portion of his Honor’s charge given in response to prayers for instructions on the part of plaintiff, as follows:

“That if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff went' into the possession of the land described in the complaint and held the same in open, notorious and adverse possession under known and visible lines and boundaries for twenty years, and he has not conveyed it, it would give the plaintiff title, and you should answer the first issue Wes.’

“That if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff went into the possession of the land described in the complaint by a parol gift from his father, and held the same in open and adverse possession under known and visible boundaries for twenty years, and he has not conveyed it, it would give the plaintiff title, and you should answer the first issue Wes.’

“That if you find that the plaintiff’s father gave the land described in complaint to the plaintiff, orally, and that he went in possession of same and held it for twenty years, cultivating and using it as his own, then it would give the plain *252 tiff title, and be would be entitled to recover tbe same, unless be bas made a deed of conveyance of tbe same.”

We are of opinion that there is no reversible error in tbe record, and tbe judgment for defendant is affirmed.

No error.