Vance v. Fore
Before: Iafter
Synopsis
Deed—Description in.—Where one deed refers to another for a description of the granted premises, the deed referred to becomes a part of the other; and the description contained in it is regarded as of the same effect as if copied into the deed itself.
Deed—Reference in to Map.—Where a map or plan of a tract of land, with lines drawn upon it marking its boundaries, and with the natural objects upon its surface laid down, is referred to in a deed as containing a description of the premises therein conveyed, this map or plan is to be regarded as giving the true description of the land conveyed, as much as if it was expressly recited and marked down in the deed itself.
Deed—Conflicting Descriptions.—If a deed contains conflicting descriptions, that description is to be adopted which is the least likely to be affected with mistakes.
Same.—Where a deed referred to another deed previously made for a description of the premises conveyed, and also to a map previously made for a description of the same premises, and the description in the deed referred to did not fix any monument at the initial point which could be determined with accuracy, and the end of the line running from the initial point terminated at “the base of the mountain,” and then turning down at right angles was to follow dozen the base of the mountain, and the character of the country was such that witnesses might differ as to the location of these lines, and the map referred to represented all the natural and artificial objects found upon the land—such as streams, buildings, and roads— and there was a conflict between the verbal description as found in the deed and the boundaries as laid down on the map; held, that -the description presented by the map must be adopted as the one most stable, and least likely to bo affected with mistakes.
Same.—Where a deed contains two descriptions of the land conveyed, and both are of equal authority, that one which is most favorable to the grantee must be adopted.
By the Court, Si-iafter, J. This is an action of ejectment. The question presented by the record for review involves the construction of a deed given by Pena to Currey and Clarke, January 27th, 1853, and recorded February 19th of the same year. The description of the land intended to be conveyed is as follows :
“ All and singular any of the lands and lots of land embraced within the boundaries of that parcel or tract of land described in a certain deed executed by Manuel Baca to William McDaniel, bearing date on or about the 21st day of August, in the year 1850 ; the said land being in the County of Solano aforesaid, and the boundaries being described on a certain map thereof made by Thomas M. Swan, to which said deed to said McDaniel reference is hereby made for a full and ample description of said land.”
The description in the deed of Baca to McDaniel begins at a point near the centre of the north line of the tract to be conveyed, and proceeds as follows : “ Thence due west to the base of the mountains; thence in a southerly direction three English miles, that is to say, following the base of the mountains in a southerly direction three English miles; thence due east three English miles; thence due north three English miles; thence west to the place of beginning, so as to include three English miles square, or nine square miles of land.”
[444]The Swan map is made part of the statement on appeal, and under the adjudged cases both that map and the description given in the deed of Baca to McDaniel, are to be considered part of the deed to be construed. “ When one deed refers to another for a description of the granted premises, it is regarded as of the same effect as if the latter was copied into the deed itself.” (Allen v. Bates, 6 Pick. 460; Foss v. Crisp, 20 Pick. 121.) “ When lines are laid down upon a plan, and are referred to accordingly in a deed, they are to be regarded as givingrthe true description of the parcel as much as if expressly recited in the deed itself.” (Davis v. Rainsford, 17 Mass. 210; Kennebec Purchase v. Tiffany, 1 Me. 219; Thomas v. Patten, 13 Me. 329 ; Bunt v. Holland, 14 Mass. 149 ; Miller v. Cullum, 4 Ala. 576.)
The deed to McDaniel calls : First—For nine square miles; Second—Lying in the form of a square; Third—Included within certain boundaries named. The boundaries as given are courses and distances, aided somewhat as to the westerly side of the tract by reference to physical objects. The initial point is not marked by any monument. The end of the line, described as running due west from the place of beginning, is not indicated otherwise than by saying that it terminates “at the base of the mountain.” The reference here is not to a visible object, but to a point, the exact location of which can never be determined with absolute precision. Witnesses of equal intelligence, after giving to the subject an equal amount of attention, might, and probably would, differ more or less in their conclusions concerning it. The western line is described as running in a southerly direction three English miles, following the base of the mountain; but the exact line of the base is not fixed by any reference to visible objects, nor is there any object named as marking the southern terminus of the western line. The residue of the description is clearly given by courses and distances, and to every practical intent we consider that the entire description is of like character. A plat was produced in evidence at the trial, based upon this description by courses and distances, and it appears as a fact in the case that
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)