Airey v. Kunkle
Airey v. Kunkle
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The simple solution of the at first- seemingly difficult questions, presented by this ease, is found in the wise and well known rule of law that where in a conveyance there is a conflict between the adjoiners and the .courses and distances, the former shall control. The application of this rule, fortified as it is by circumstances, referred to by the learned trial judge in his able and convincing opinion, necessarily led to the entry of judgment for the defendant on the ease stated.
The ingenious argument of the plaintiff’s counsel fails to satisfy us that any error has been committed, and as anything we might say would merely be an elaboration of what has been already sufficiently expressed in the opinion, further discussion is unnecessary.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John Airey v. Mary Ann Kunkle
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Deeds — Contradictory descriptions of land conveyed — Calls for adjoiners. Where land is described by courses and distances and also by calls for adjoiners, the latter, where there is discrepancy, invariably governs. Deeds — Contradictory description of land conveyed — How construed. It is a rule of construction that as soon as there is an adequate and sufficient definition with convenient certainty of what is intended to pass by a particular instrument, a subsequent erroneous addition will not vitiate it. Where, therefore, two deeds to different grantees for adjoining lots' fronting on a certain street described the lots of a certain width, extending of that width between parallel linos at right angles with said street; and it appeared by reason of a prior sale by7 the common grantor that the effect of making them parallel lines at right angles with the street would be to narrow one of the lots over six feet at one end, it was held that the words “ at right angles with the street ” must be in law stricken from both deeds, it being plain that the true intent of the description was to give lots of the same width at each end between parallel lines. Construction of deed by acts of parties — Erection of division fence. AATiere the owners of the adjoining lots, conveyed by the deeds, erected a- division fence, which stood undisturbed for sixteen 3'ears, and was in harmony with a construction of the deeds which ignored the lines called for by the deed as at right angles with the street, but preserved the equal width of the lots at each end ; this was a contemporaneous construction of the description of the lots by the parties themselves not without weight. Title by estoppel — When inapplicable — Particular circumsta/nces. There can be no title acquired by estoppel where the party claiming thereby has apparently suffered no injury, but holds all the land which he had bought. Nor can a party claim title by estoppel under the very person whose error is averred to have given rise to the estoppel.