Case ID: mass_23/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel C. Allen versus Isaac C. Bates et al
    
    In a writ of entry the tenant claims under a deed from S. to L. of “ a tract of land in South Hadley,” not describing it except by reference to a deed from P. to S. oí ** a right to lay out ” in a tract of common and undivided land in South Hadley or Granby, nine acres which M. had conveyed to P ; and the tenant proves that nine acres in this tract had been surveyed to P. before he made his deed to S. Held, that paroi evidence was admissible to show that the land so surveyed was the same with the land demanded and with that intended to be conveyed by S. to L. Held also, that the deed to L. was made sufficiently certain by reference.
    Whit of entry sur disseisin. The tenants offered in evidence, in support of their title, a deed from J. W. Smith to Z. Lyman, of “ a certain tract of land lying in South Hadley, with the buildings thereon standing; further reference had at the register’s office, book no. 51, page 257.” At the place referred to was the record of a deed dated February 21, 1824, from Willis Pease to Smitn, of “the right to lay out m Thomas Hovey’s 2d choice in the two thousand acre division, nine acres of the common and undivided land in South Hadley or Granby in the county aforesaid, which Thomas Moody of said Granby conveyed to me by a deed dated the 28th day of Aug. A. D. 1821.” The tenants produced also the Proprietors’ Records of South Hadley and Granby, in which was the following entry. “ Part of Thomas Hovey’s second choice in the 2000 acre division laid out to Willis Pease on the mountain west of Taylor’s Crack, beginning &c., nine acres, surveyed August 28th, 1821, per Gardner Preston, surveyor.” The tenants also proved by a witness, that the land so laid out was the same with the demanded premises, and with that intended to be conveyed by Smith’s deed. The demandant objected to the admission of these deeds as being void for uncertainty, and to the paroi evidence so offered to explain and support them.
    
      Sept. 26th.
    
    
      Strong and JLshmun,
    
    for the demandant, cited 1 Phil. Ev. 410, 416 ; 3 Stark. Ev. 1000; Doe v. Oxenden, 4 Dow, 65.
    Dewey,
    for the tenants, cited Jackson v. Root, 18 Johns. R. 63.
   But the Court held that the description in the deed from Smith to Lyman was made sufficiently certain by reference, and that the paroi evidence was properly admitted ; and judgment was given according to the verdict, which was for the tenants. 
      
       See Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. (2nd ed.) 190, note 2; Foss v. Crisp, 20 Pick. 121.
     
      
       See 2 Stark. Ev. (5th Am ed.) 560, 561, note 1.