Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Minn. 62

Austrian v. Dean

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 23, 1876

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1876-06-23

By contract under seal, made March 25, 1872, the defendant agreed to soli and convoy in fee to plaintiff “ the west half of the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section numbered five, (5,) in township numbered forty-seven, (47,) north, of range numbered four, (4,) in the district of lands subject to sale at Bayfield, state of Wisconsin, containing twenty acres, more or less,” for $10,000, of which $1,000 was to be paid upon the execution of the contract,…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1910

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Words expressing the quantity, in a deed of a tract otherwise definitely described, are held to be merely additional description, and are controlled by the definite calls in the deed, and, therefore, immaterial. Being inserted merely as matter of description, and not for the purpose of covenant, it is not material, where there is no fraud or express covenant as to quantity, whether the quantity is more or less than that stated.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hyde v. Phillips

Relies on Powell v. Clark

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gileillan, G. J.

¶1The plaintiff’s action is based upon a deed by defendant to him of certain real estate, described in the deed as ‘ ‘ the west half of the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section 5, in town 47, of range 4, in the district of land subject to sale at Bayfield, state of Wisconsin, containing twenty acres, more or less, according to the government survey thereof,” which appears to have been sold for a gross sum. It ,is claimed that the words, *64“containing twenty acres, more or less, according to the government survey thereof,” amount to a covenant that by the government survey there are twenty acres in the piece described.

¶2Words expressing the quantity, in a deed of a tract otherwise definitely described, are held to bo merely additional description, and are controlled by the definite calls in the deed, and, therefore, immaterial. Being inserted merely as matter of description, and not for the purpose of covenant, it is not material, where there is no fraud or express covenant as to quantity, whether the quantity is more or less than that stated. Powell v. Clark, 5 Mass. 355 ; Jackson v. Moore, 6 Cowen, 706 ; Jackson v. Defendorf, 1 Caine, 493 ; Mann v. Pearson, 2 John. 37.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/23/minn/62 · .json · Public domain