Writ oe Entry. Trial by the court. The plaintiff owns a piece of land in Lancaster village, out of which, previous to his acquiring his title, a lot, now owned by the defendant, had been conveyed by deed with the following description: “A certain piece or parcel of land with the buildings thereon, situated on the easterly side of Main street in Lancaster village, bounded and described as follows, viz.: Commencing at the north-west corner of the plot deeded by Jacob E.…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1982
¶1
A deed is
not
defeated by a manifestly erroneous statement of a course or monument, when the remaining description is sufficiently certain to locate the land. The erroneous statement may be rejected, and the deed will have effect according to the remaining description.
Harvey v. Mitchell,
31 N. H. 575;
Thompson
v.
Ela,
60 N. H. 562;
Bosworth
v.
Sturtevant,
2 Cush. 392;
Parks
v.
Loomis,
6 Gray 467.
¶2
In the description of the premises in the deed under which the defendant claims title, there is manifestly an error in giving the “north-west corner” of the plot before conveyed to the same grantee, as the initial boundary of the land described. From the general description in the deed, taken in connection with the plot before conveyed and referred to in this deed and its location, it is plain that the premises described and intended to be conveyed lie to the east of and adjacent to that plot, and that the first line desqribed as running easterly could not begin at the “north-west corner” of the plot, but must necessarily begin at the north-east corner. Rejecting the word “ north-west ” as erroneous, the remaining part of the statement describes a definite and certain tract of land by metes and bounds, and one that must be taken as that intended by the parties to the conveyance. That tract includes the land in controversy, and upon the title made by this deed the defendant is entitled to judgment.
