Hoffman v. Riehl

• Decision Date: 31 October 1858
• Citation: 27 Mo. 554
• Parties: HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. RIEHL, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 Mo. 554

HOFFMAN, Respondent,

v.RIEHL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1858.

1. Where there is a palpable omission in the description of a deed, it may be supplied by construction.

2. In the absence of calls for specific objects, or other controlling calls, the course will control.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

The following is the description contained in the deed of John Steiner to Mary Steiner: “The west half of the east half of the southwest quarter of section 14, township 44 north, range 6 east; and also a piece or parcel of land of the southeast side of the northwest fractional quarter of the same section, township and range--butted and bounded as follows: Beginning at a stake on the line between said section 14 and section 23, from where the corner of sections 15, 22, 23 and said section 14 making but one corner bears west 20 chains distance; thence south 40 chains to a stake; thence north 87 degrees west to the southwest corner of said fractional quarter; thence north two chains and sixty-two links to a stake; thence north 87 degrees east 30 chains to a stake, from which a black-jack, 12 inches in diameter, bears north 48 degrees east, distance 40 links; thence south 42 chains to a stake on said line between said sections [?] to the beginning and containing as aforesaid 50 acres, be the same more or less,” etc.

The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the following instruction to the jury: “1. If the jury find that it is impossible to survey the land intended to be surveyed by the deed of John to Mary Steiner, so as to comply with the courses, distances and corners therein called for, then the call in the deed for the ‘west half of the east half of the southwest quarter of section fourteen’ operates to convey to said Mary the equal half of said west half of said quarter section, and the jury will disregard the other calls in the deed.” The court refused the following, among other instructions, asked by the plaintiff: “2. In considering the deed from John Steiner to Mary Steiner, the jury are authorized to understand and construe it as if the word ‘thence’ were written between the words ‘said sections' and the words ‘to the beginning.”

H. N. Hart, for appellant.

Krum & Harding and Gibson, for respondent.

RICHARDSON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the only description in the deed had been “the west half of the east half of the southwest quarter of section 14,” under some circumstances it would be just and proper to determine the rights of the parties by an equal division of the land between them; but the deed under which the plaintiff claims calls for specific boundaries, courses, distances and corners, which must not be...