State Savings Bank v. Stewart

Citations

• 93 Va. 447
• 25 S.E. 543
• 1896 Va. LEXIS 95

Syllabus

<p>1. Deeds—Repugnant Descriptions—Intention of Parties—Case at Bar.—A false description does not render a deed or other writing inoperative, if, after rejecting what is false there remains a sufficient description to ascertain with legal certainty the subject matter to which the instrument applies. And if two descriptions be given, each equally explicit, but repugnant to each other, that description will prevail which the whole deed shows best expresses the intention of the parties. The court will also look to the surrounding facts, and will adopt that description, if certain and definite, which, in the light of such facts will most effectually carry out the intention of the parties. In the case at bar there were two repugnant descriptions, but the grantor owned the lots answering to only one of them, and it was with reference to these lots that the parties dealt. This description being definite and certain, should be adopted, and the deed of the grantor declared operative to convey the lots so described.</p> <p>2. Deed—Effect of Reference to a Map for Description.—Where a map of land is referred to in a deed for the purpose of fixing its boundaries, the effect is the same as if it were copied into the deed.</p> <p>3. Deeds—Description of Land—Position in Deed of True and False Description.—It is immaterial whether the true or the false description of land be placed first. The courts will reject the false wherever found, and give effect to the intention of the parties when so expressed as to enable the premises intended to be conveyed to be identified.</p>