The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1874-05-30

An Abstract of Decisions OF { lie fsU-
preLne Court OF fsle United Siates asiu
OF tsse Courts of tiic Val Tors States in
the Union upon Questions Relating
SO Boundaries. Surveys Etc.
II. A conveyance of land, described
as a tract surveyed for particular PEI
son, passes all within the bound of the
survey. 1t is, in fact, a conveyance by
reference to courses and distances, or
metes and bounds, which are as opera
tive to define the subject of the
grant, as if they were included in
the deed. Per GibsonC. j., Armstrong
V. Boyd, Pa. 469.
is. Where land is conveyed by deed
referring to plan, between which and
the original survey there is differ
ence in the location of lines and mon
uments, the lines and monuments
originally marked as such are to gov
ern, however they may differ from
those represented ON the plan. Ripley
V. Berry, 5. Gyeenl. (Me. "a Brown V.
Gay, Greeul. 1875.
10. Boundary may be proved by
every kind of evidence, which is adj
Missile to establish any other fact,
and when boundary is ancient, even
reputation is admissible to prove it.
Smith v. Prewitt, 2 A. K. Marsh, (Ky.)
l5S; Smith v. Novels, 3 Lift. (Ky.)
l59. Ancient reputation and possess
sion, in regard to boundaries of streets
II a town, are entitled to more respect
il. deciding on the boundaries of lots,
than any experimental survey that
may be afterwards made. Rolston v.
Miller, Rand. VA =.
20. Where deed gives description,
:al, I, naut,iroI HvnI lannI
construction, or refers to boundary
which is variable, parol evidence is adj
missible to explain the deed. Water
man V. johnson, IS Pick. Mass. 26l.
q. AS where land was bounded by
pond, which by means of artificial
WORKS, was differently raised at differ
emf times, 1t was held that this consti-
tuted latent ambiguity, ana that parol
evidence was admissible to show that
Il certain line was agreed on and under
stood at the time of the conveyance as
the boundary of the pond. Waterman
v. Johnson, 10 Peck. PSI.
%. Where a stake and stones are
referred, as a monument, in deed or
levy, parol proof is admissible to show
their location. / Shepley (Me.) III.
See LinscotJ v. Fernald, 5 Greenl. Me
496. Claremont ". Carlton, r. stamp
G73. So also of tree. Flake V. Doh
erty, Wheat, $50.
%. Where a deed calls for course
from point on river, different from
the course of the river and not calling
for it, parol evidence is not admissible
to prove that the river was the lire
which was originally run. Den v.
Green. 2 Hawkes. IN. C.) 2lS.
%. in locating q deed upon the
Q ound, the rule IS to re'v-1, On the
actual lines original y satyeyed; Z, On
lines run from acknowledged calls or
corners; 2, On lines run according to
the course and distance named in the
deed. Avery v. Baum, Wright,
(Ohio) $50.
25. What are boundaries described
in deed is q question Oh Jaw. The
place of boundaries is a matter of fact.
Doe v. Paine, Hawks, IN. c. Ga. See
Coc4rell v. McQuinn, Moar. (Ky.)
So; Hurley V. Morgan, / Dew. aud Bal.
IN. c. 425.
26. Where the boundaries of land are
fixed known, and uuquestionabie mon
Iments, although neither courses, nor
distances, nor the computed contents
the monuments must gov
ern. Pernam v. Wead, Mass. 13l;
Alshire v. Halse, 8 Ham. (Ohio) 5S4;
Sims V. Baker, Cooke, (Ten.) 14C; Cal
houn v. Wall, . Har. & McIien. No.
jl0.
81. Preference is said TO be giyel to
monuments because it is most benefi-
cial to the grantee in giving him more
land. Carroll'v. Norwood, 5 Har. q j.,
Md 1G5.
2s. A line is to be extended to reach
} boundary in the direction called for,
Che distance. Wither-
spoon v, Blanks, Taylor, IN. CT ITO. {
See Doe. V. Roscoe, Hawks n. CO,
II.
20. fla vendor hold two tracts adj
and sell a certain quantity by
netes and bounds, though the deeds
all for one tract, yet if the metes and
pounds run into the other, the pur-
,haser shall hold according to the
netes and bounds. Wallace V. Max
veil, ]. ]. Marsh. (Ky.) 44e. See 3