Court Opinion

ID: 9825678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:54:52.600006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.414867
License: Public Domain

Hart, O. J., (on rehearing). Counsel for appellant earnestly insist that a rehearing should be granted because the description in the mortgage brings this case within the principles of law decided in Freed v. Brown, 41 Ark. 495, and other decisions of this court, to the effect that a description in a conveyance of a part of a particular tract of land of a larger tract, containing a designated quantity of acres, is void for uncertainty. The reason is that in such cases the calls in the deed do not refer to anything 'by which the land could be located, and parol evidence cannot import terms into an instrument. It can only be used to explain or show the things to which the instrument refers by the terms it uses so as to make the terms certain when understood. For that reason, all instruments of that character are void upon their face for uncertainty. We have set forth the description of the mortgaged lands in our former opinion as contained in the mortgage to Gleason, and do not deem it necessary to set them out again in this opinion. Beference to the description will show that it does not fall within the class of cases just referred to, but rather comes within Little Rock and Ft. Smith Ry. Co. v. Evins, 76 Ark. 261, 88 S. W. 992, and Walker v. David, 68 Ark. 544, 60 S. W. 418. In the case first cited, it was admitted by the parties that the tract in controversy contained 7-19/100 acres. Hence there was a call within the deed by means of which’ by the aid of parol evidence the land could be identified or located. In the latter case, there was also a call within the deed showing the quantity of lands conveyed, and the proof was that the grantor owned only that amount of land in the section under consideration and owned no other land in that section. Hence the calls in the deed, aided by parol evidence, were sufficient to identify and locate the land. So here it was admitted by the parties that 200 acres were, at the time of the execution and delivery of the mortgage to Gleason, all the lands in section 15, township 3, south of range 2 west, Arkansas County, which were owned by the mortgagors. Hence, under the cases above cited, the description was sufficient. If the mortgagors had owned a greater quantity of land than that described in the mortgage in section 15, the cases cited by appellant would control. The most serious contention in our mind is whether or not we were correct in holding that the description of the 200 acres in section 15-3-2 referred to the 200 acres of land owned by the mortgagors in that section or was merely intended to convey the right-of-way for the canal 'owned by the Prang- and Tindall Pumping Plant and Canal. After a careful consideration of the matter, we adhere to our original view on this point. There is a plat of the pumping plant and canal in the-transcript. The map shows that the pumping plant is located’in the northwest corner of said section 15 on White River. It extends in a southwesterly direction through the northwest quarter of section 15 into section 16. Thence, it runs in a southwesterly direction to the center of section 16. The canal then extends southward through the eastern half of section 21 but close to the western boundary thereof. It enters section 28 near the western boundary of the east half of section 21 and extends through section 28 in a southwesterly direction. Now, it will be noted that the description in the mortgage is the northwest quarter of section 29 which is the 160 acres west of the north half of section 28. Then the mortgage contains a description as follows: “West half of section 21. This is the 320 acres west of the canal which runs through the east half of section 21.” It will be noted that the description is of a one-half interest in the. Prang- and Tindall Pumping Plant and Canal, with all lands, (about 200 acres, in section 15-3-2), machinery and fixtures thereto belonging. Now the evidence shows that nothing- like this amount of land would have been required as a right-of-way for the canal. It is conceded that 8 or 9 acres would have been sufficient for that purpose. Therefore, we think that the expression “all lands, about 200 acres,” in connection with the agreement that 200 acres was all the land owned by the mortgagors in section 15, shows that the mortg'agors intended to convey the 200 acres of land and in addition thereto their one-half interest in the pumping plant and canal. If, as contended by counsel for appellant, they had merely intended to convey the right-of-way for the canal, it would have been just as necessary to have done this by proper description through the other lands as it would have been through the lands in section 15. It is shown that most of the 200 aeres-owned by the mortgagors in section 15 were not adjacent to the canal, and were not used as a part of its right-of-way, and the use of the phrase “all lands,” etc., indicates that it was intended to embrace in the mortgage all the lands owned by the mortgagors in section 15, instead of merely those necessary for a right-of-way for the canal. Therefore the motion for rehearing will be denied.