Faris v. Phelan
JAMES FARIS v. GREGORY PHELAN
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Rhodes, O. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, Wallace, J., Sprague, J., and Temple, J, concurring:
The reservation in the deed of Phelan to Gillespie is described as “commencing at a point or stake in the southerly line of H street produced, of Sacramento City, at a distance of fifty-four (54) chains east from the eastern boundary of Thirty-first street, of said city, measured on a line of H street, produced aforementioned; thence running south forty (40) chains to a point or stake; thence east forty (40) chains; thence north forty (40) chains; thence west forty (40) chains, along the southern line of H street, aforementioned, to the place of beginning, containing one hundred and sixty acres of ‘ land. ” The position of H street is well defined, and that street may be regarded as a definite and certain call; and H street produced is nearly, if not quite, as definite and certain. It is apparent, we think, that the parties intend the tract to be laid off in square form, and that they did not intend to include therein any land lying north of the southern line of H street. The partition deeds executed by Gillespie and Mesick add strength to this construction. Adopting this construction, the courses will be read southerly, easterly, northerly, and westerly, instead of south, east, north and west; and thus all the calls of the reservation will be harmonized. This, we are satisfied, is the correct construction of the words descriptive of the reservation.
Judgment affirmed.
Crockett, J., expressed no-opinion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.