Colcord v. Alexander

Citations

• 67 Ill. 581

Syllabus

<p>1. Conveyance—sufficiency of description—pwrol evidence. Any description adopted in a deed by which the premises intended to be conveyed may be established and identified, is sufficient, and it is the settled doctrine that, for the purpose of sustaining a grant, extrinsic evidence may always be used to identify and establish the objects of the call in the deed. A devise or grant will only be declared void for uncertainty when, after resort to oral proof, it still remains a matter of mere conjecture what was intended by the instrument.</p> <p>2. Thus, where the levy of an execution and the marshal’s deed made to the purchaser described the land as “part of the east half of the south west quarter of section ten, in township five north, range three west of the third principal meridian, situate in the county of Bond, and State of Illinois, containing sixty-four acres more or less,” and the levy further showed that it was levied on “as the property of the within named defendants;” and it appeared from extrinsic evidence that the judgment debtors owned sixty-four acres in the section, township and range described: 5'eld, that the levy and deed were not void for uncertainty, as the land could be located with reasonable certainty by the previous possession and descriptions contained in the deeds of former grantors.</p> <p>3. If the description had been of a less number of acres than the debtors owned in the quarter described, then it would have been void for uncertainty, and the part intended could not be shown hy parol proof.</p> <p>4. If a party sell a certain number of acres, or all the land he has in a certain locality, it may be shown what lands he owned in the locality.</p>