Fisher v. Quackenbush

Citations

• 83 Ill. 310

Syllabus

<p>1. Ambiguity—rule as to evidence to explain. A patent ambiguity in a deed can not be explained or helped by averment and proof, but it is otherwise if it is a latent one. When the description of land, in a deed, is not ambiguous on its face, but is rendered so by extrinsic evidence, showing it equally applicable to two different tracts or interests in the same tract, the ambiguity is latent, and may be explained by evidence aliunde.</p> <p>2. Where a party owns an indefeasible title to the undivided fourth part of a tract of land, and acquires a tax title for the undivided two-thirds of the undivided three-fourths of the same tract, and makes a conveyance of' “ one-third of the undivided three-fourths ” of the tract, there arises a patent ambiguity as to whether the deed passes an interest in the fourth to which he has a good title, or an interest acquired through the tax deed, and it may be shown, by extrinsic evidence, which was intended to be conveyed.</p> <p>8. Evidence — to show what title passes by deed. Where the holder of a perfect title to an undivided fourth of a tract of land, and also of a tax title to another undivided fourth, makes a quitclaim deed of an undivided fourth, the consideration of the deed affords evidence, though not conclusive, which title was intended to be conveyed. If it is of no adequate price for the perfect title, it will be evidence that the tax title was intended lo be granted or released.</p> <p>4. And where the quitclaim deed is made to a party holding a patent title to an undivided fourth of the tract, and the description is identical with the sheriff’s deed to the grantor, these facts will afford evidence that a release of the tax title as to the grantee’s undivided fourth, only, was intended.</p>