32 Tenn. App. 675 - Jones v. Mabry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The description before us contains two important particulars.... These are, the reference to appropriate pointers and the fact that one of the boundary lines is described as running south with the creek. [[Image here]] In addition to the foregoing considerations, the fact that the number of acres conveyed is stated in the deed is significant, for the rule is that a call for quantity may sometimes be resorted to for the purpose of locating and identifying land. Certainly it is true that a deed to be valid must designate the land intended to be conveyed with reasonable certainty. But with respect to executed contracts conveying real property, the courts have been extremely liberal in construing the description with a view of determining whether it is sufficiently definite and certain to identify the land and make the instrument operative as a conveyance, and it is said to be a broad general principle “that a deed will not be declared void for uncertainty in description if it is possible by any reasonable rules of construction to ascertain from the description, aided by extrinsic evidence, what property is intended to be conveyed”. “It is sufficient ... if the description in the deed or conveyance furnishes a means of identification of the land or by which the property conveyed can be located”. The test is whether a surveyor with the deed before him and with or without the aid of extrinsic evidence can locate the land and establish the boundaries. [[Image here]] Under the rule a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Newton v. Herskowitz (In Re Gatlinburg Motel Enterprises, Ltd.)

2. ““[0]ne acre of land lying on the North Fork of Swan pon [sic] Creek to be laid of [sic] So as to contain the house as near the center as possible So that no part of the Swamp north of Said house is the acre for the Encouragement of Education and the Spread of the Gospel ...” provided “that said Church is to be govern by the same Rules and Regulations that Methodist Churches is agreeable to the Rules layed [sic] down in the Methodist Discipline.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Newton v. Herskowitz (In Re Gatlinburg Motel Enterprises, Ltd.)