Case Name: William Birchmore, Sen. ads. Edward Broughton
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-03
Citations: 1 Harp. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Birchmore, Sen. ads. Edward Broughton.
Judges: JVott, and Huger, Justices, concurred1. ■
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 300–302

Head Matter:
William Birchmore, Sen. ads. Edward Broughton.
' The sheriff’s deed to plaintiff conveys “ all that plantation extract 0/ land,” belonging to defendant “ in Sumter district.” Defendant had several tracts of land in Sumter district. Held that the deed was void for uncertainty, and that the defect could not be supplied by the sheriff’s advertisement, or his oral testimony, to shew what land was levied on and meant to be conveyed.
Action of trespass to try title.. The plaintiff claimed tinder the sheriff's deed; he produced a judgment against Birch-more, but not-the execution under which the sale was made. He proved an ineffectual search, for it. The sheriff was sworn and examined on the part of the plaintiff, who proved that be had the execution in his hands, at the time of the levy; that his levy book was lost, but that he had levied upon the tract on which defendant lived; not the mill tract. He spoke very positively. The sheriff’s deed was then offered — it described the land sold, thus, “ all that plantation or tract of land lying in Sumter district.” The surveyor then produced his plat, which, was found-to be a survey of- the mill tract. The sheriff’s’ advertisement was next offered, to shew what land was levied upon, and what land the deed meant to describe. Defendant .objected to tbe introduction of the deed for these purposes, but was overruled. A motion for a non-suit was also overruled: Plaintiff bought the land for fifty dollars at the sale. The mill tract, which he contended was the land purchased, had upon it a saw and-grist .mill. ' Verdict for plaintiff, the land - and one cent.
The motion for a-non-suit was renewed on appeal, and -if refused; a motion for a new trial’was substituted:
1. Because the sheriff’s, advertisement ought not to-have been received in evidence to explain the deed:
2. Because the description -of the land in the deed .was so indefinite that it could convey no right.

Opinion:
The opinion of. the Court was delivered by
Mr, Justice Canit.
The plaintiff founds his claim -under a" deed of conveyance, from the sheriff of Sumter district, and the only description given of the premises intended to be conveyed is, " all that plantation or tract of land lying in Sumter district." The counsel for the defendant, considering the deed void, on account of the generality of the description, moved for a non-suit; but was overruled, and the plaintiff had a verdict. The same ground is now insisted on.
In a deed, the premises ought to comprehend tbe certainty of the lands or tenements to be conveyed, 4th Comyns Dig. 102; and a grant shall be void if it be totally uncertain; as if a man grant as many trees as can be spared in his manor, or If he g> ant £10 per annum, parcel of his manor, without other certainty, Comyns 302. In both these instances, there is at least as much, if not more of certainty in the description, than Is furnished by the present deed; but inasmuch as it does not' appear what trees can be spared, or from what parcel of the manor the grant of £10 per annum is to issue, such conveyance would be void for uncertainty.
Birchmore, the defendant, owned several tracts of land lying in Sumter Í dstrict; tlio Sheriff conveyed one. — It would be as impossible to say, from the description in the' sheriff's" deed, which of the tracts of land of Birchmore was intended, as in the instance quoted, to say what trees or what parcel of tile-manor ivas intended. Hence arose the necessity in this case, of resorting to evidence extrinsic to the deed, to ascertain and identify the land.
The sheriff was called upon to give oral evidence of that which ought to have been shewn by his' official deed.1 The execution under which the levy was made he had lost, or so mislaid as that it could not become ati It would be dangerous in tbe extreme, to the best interests of the community, were this exceedingly loose and very incorrect procedure to be upheld' and supported. Where there are so many materials, from whence to furnish out description, as appertain to lands sold under execution, the omission neither can, or ought to be supplL ed- by oral testimony The certanty required by law should be found in the deed itself, and not sought for aliunde. Had tlie description been " all that tract of land, lying in South Carolina," it would have been just as good as that furnished by this deed. True, it might have increased the perplexity of the alienee, to find where it was situated, from the extended limit of the search to be made, but in point of legal certainty, ifc: would have been precisely the same. I am of opinion that the motion for a non suit should prevail, and the postea is to be de* livered to the defendant.
Hesaussure, for motion.
Miller, contra.
JVott, and Huger, Justices, concurred1.