John Burnett, Appellant, v. George W. Wadsworth, Respondent

John Burnett, Appellant, v. George W. Wadsworth, Respondent. (Argued September 23, 1873; decided January term, 1874.) This was an action of trespass. Defendant claimed under a deed in which the lands conveyed were thus described: “All that certain tract or piece of land, it being the south half of lot * * * No. 50, in the township of Salem, bounded as follows: Beginning at the north-east corner of lot No. 49, at a stake and stones; and from thence runs east forty chains to a stake and stones; and from thence north eleven chains to a stake and stones; and' from thence west forty chains to a stake and stones; and from thence south to the place of beginning, containing-forty-four acres of land, all within the said boundaries, be the same more or less.” Plaintiff claimed, title under a subsequent deed which conveyed “ the north half of lot No. 50, in the town of Salem.” The locus in quo was upon the north half of lot No. 50, but within the boundary lines of the deed under which defendant claimed. The north line of said lot was forty-three chains and seventy-six links in length; the south line forty-three chains forty-eight links; the east line twenty-one chains twenty links; the west line twenty chains forty links. The trial court charged the jury that plaintiff had the paper title to the land in dispute; that each party had the paper title to one-half the lot. This was excepted to. Held, error; that the particular description being an independent one, as if made upon a survey without reference to the lot lines, this was a case where the courses and distances as given might he relied on with much certainty as describing the lands intended to be conveyed. As to the general rule, that where a general description is followed by a particular description the latter will control, the following authorities were cited: Jackson v. Loomis (18 J. R., 86); Loomis v. Jackson (19 id., 449); Hathaway v. Power (6 Hill, 453); Roe v. Vernon (5 East, 51); Doe v. Galloway (5 B. & Ad., 43). L. Fraser for the appellant. James Gibson for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Earl, C.,] Earl, C., reads for affirmance. All concur. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute against plaintiff.