Redd v. Murry

Deeds — Description of Town Lots — Certainty—Reference to Plat — Parol Evidence — Identity of Plat.—A deed of town lots which gives the dimensions of the boundaries thereof, and describes them by the numbers of the lots and block, referring to a plat thereof, is not upon its face void for uncertainty, though the description is not sufficiently certain without production, by one claiming under it, of the plat therein referred to, or of its contents; and parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of identifying a plat offered in evidence as the one referred to in the deed.

Id.—Quieting Title—Evidence—Existence of Map—Proof of Identity— References in Chain of Title—Conveyancer from Defendant — Admission. — In an action to quiet title to land, where the deed under which the plaintiff claims title was made by one of the defendants, and refers to a map for a description of the property, such deed is, as against that defendant and his co-defendant claiming under him by a subsequent conveyance, sufficient proof of the fact that there was such a plat in existence at the date of the deed to the plaintiff; and further evidence, tending to show that the property was in fact surveyed prior to the execution of any of such deeds, and that the defendant who was the grantor of the plaintiff had himself, some two years thereafter, produced the map offered in evidence as the plat of the tract, sufficiently identifies the map as the one mentioned in the deed, and entitles it to be admitted in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

Id.—Map of Addition to Town — Certainty—Absence of Field-notes or Designation — Reference to Natural Monuments — Location of Land. — Where a map of an addition to a town, though unaccompanied by field-notes, and having no signs or letters to indicate the different points of the compass, or any express designation of it as the map of any particular place, yet shows upon its face streets and alleys, and blocks subdivided into lots, and the relative location of a country road and a river, naming many of the streets and numbering the blocks, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the map is upon its face void for uncertainty, or that it would be impossible to locate upon the ground a block of land, described in a deed by number, and as bounded on one side by one of the streets named in the map.

Id. —Identity of Block—Evidence. —Whether a block of land referred to in a deed is capable of being identified by reference to a map of an addition to the town is a question of fact, upon which the evidence of persons acquainted with the town, and what is known as such addition thereto, and the different streets or other objects shown on the map, is admissible.

Id. — Metes and Bounds of Block — Finding against Evidence. — Where the plaintiff claims under a deed of town lots, which does not describe the lots by metes and bounds, but refers to them only as constituting a block designated on the map of an addition to the town, and though introducing and identifying the map, introduces no evidence showing that the land could be properly located and described by specific metes and bounds with the aid of the map, a finding and judgment that the plaintiff is the owner of land described by specific metes and bounds is against the evidence.