United States v. 12,918.28 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 498.,498. |
| Citation | 61 F. Supp. 545 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 12,918.28 ACRES OF LAND IN WEBSTER PARISH, LA., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
R. D. Watkins, of Minden, La., for Mrs. Kate Jackson Crichton, T. Crichton, Jr., Mrs. Kate Crichton Gredler, and Powell Crichton.
A. S. Drew, of Minden, La., E. Leland Richardson, of Dale, Richardson, & Dale, all of Baton Rouge, La., for M. D. Saucier.
In the above condemnation proceedings we have now to consider the issue on the merits between the Government and Mrs. Kate Jackson Crichton, Thomas Crichton, Jr., Mrs. Kate Crichton Gredler, and Powell Crichton, on the one hand, and between the Government and Moore D. Saucier on the other. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, D.C.Md., 40 F.Supp. 436. Much of the narrative and many of the facts explanatory of the issue are omitted here, and the reader is referred to this same case when considered by us on a motion to dismiss and a motion to pay claimant the price of a litigious right, at, D.C., 50 F. Supp. 712, and when considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals ( us), at 147 F.2d 430.
It is admitted by the parties concerned that a full and complete title to the property involved was vested in William Bogel by virtue of a deed to him from H. M. Hyams, dated April 25, 1879, recorded in Deed Book 3, page 90, Webster Parish, Louisiana.
It is also admitted by all parties that a full and complete title to property involved was invested in Thomas B. Neal by virtue of the deed to him from William Bogel, dated April 2, 1884, recorded in Deed Book 4, page 209, of the same parish and state.
Then it is admitted by all parties that T. B. Neal, on July 23, 1887, sold an undivided one-third interest in the property to A. Goodwill, Conveyance Records, Volume 5, page 198.
Then on October 17, 1900, T. B. Neal executed a deed to Thomas Crichton, the husband of the first-named and the father of the three latter-named Crichtons, the interpretation of which is one of our main duties. It is quoted in full as recorded,1 and immediately thereafter is quoted in full2 the original retained by Mr. Crichton, the vendee. This latter original document was offered by both sides, but particularly by the Saucier side, though for the restricted purpose of showing that the Crichtons have no title whatever to the property involved.
The chief deputy clerk for twenty-eight years of the 26th District Court, Webster Parish, testified that, prior to the year 1916, deeds under private signature, after being recorded, were delivered to the vendee. This explains how Mr. Crichton, Sr., had the possession of the original deed — Neal to Crichton, 1900.
The first difficulty is as to the following language at the very beginning of the description: (a) As appearing in the recorded copy: "East ½ of S.W. ¼ and S.E. ¼ of N.W. ¼ and Lot 17, Sec. 7; containing 520.71/100 acres" and (b) as appearing in the original in the possession of Mr. Crichton, Sr.: "East ½ & S.W. ¼ and S.E. ¼ of N.W. ¼ and Lot 17, Sec. 7; containing 520 71/100 Acres".
We must read this description so as to arrive at the content of 520.71 acres, because in this deed there are six specifically exact acreage contents given at the conclusion of specific governmental description, all to the accuracy of the hundredth of an acre. A sum is then given of the whole, to-wit: "2709.74 acres, more or less". To show further exactitude of acreage content, and also of price, there is the paragraph in the document reading as follows: "The consideration of this sale is the sum and price of One thousand and sixteen dollars and fifteen cents ($1016/15) cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, this being at the rate of one dollar and twelve and one-half cents ($1.12½) per acre for my one-third interest in the above described property."
The above facts being true, and admitting that a third party, with or without knowledge, is placed on guard immediately that there are only 124.52 acres, from the description, and not 520.71 acres, as specifically required, where would a prospective buyer and a professional abstracter (Mr. Saucier is that) or anyone else, go to ascertain the nature and source of this evident mistake? One would go to the previous sales of the same property to make a comparison of the description and acreage content.
When we go to the sale by William Bogel to Thomas B. Neal (when Neal bought the whole of this property), the language is as follows: "Township Eighteen, North, Range Nine West, to-wit: The East half, South West quarter and South East quarter of North West quarter, and lot Seventeen of Section Seven, containing Five hundred and twenty 70/100 acres (520.70/100)."
There we see that there is a comma that follows the words "East ½" and not an "of" as is shown in the recorded instrument, and not the symbol "&" as shown in the original instrument kept by Mr. Crichton. But the comma does away with the "of" concept; it is the equivalent of an "and".
And right here Mr. Saucier, the subsequent buyer, or Crichton, or anyone in the world, would have been informed and straightened in two other imperfections of this instrument which we must interpret within itself, having no recourse to oral evidence. These two points are that, in this language quoted, the township and range are given, which happen to be omitted altogether in both the first paragraphs of the recorded instrument and the Crichton, Sr., original. The other imperfection detected is that the sum of the acreage is 520.70 and not 520.71 acres.
Also, by reference to another anterior title, that is, the one in 1879 when William Bogel originally acquired from Succession of Hyams, the description, we find, is as follows: "Township Eighteen North Range Nine West to-wit: The East half South West quarter and South East quarter of North West quarter and lot seventeen of Section Seven containing five hundred and twenty 70/100 acres."
The same clarification comes to Mr. Saucier or any other of the general public that a township and range are now shown, that the content is exactly 520.70 acres, and that it is the East ½ plus the S.W. ¼ that are there indicated to make the 520.70 acres. The statement is made by counsel for Saucier that Mr. Neal as owner could sell his property as he saw fit, and could have sold "the East ½ of the S.W. ¼" because he did own the whole of the S.W. ¼. We grant that to be true, but such was not sold in a sale where exact descriptions of governmental surveys are given, with repeated sub-totals of acreages, where the general total acreage is given and, also, the price per acre and the whole consideration. The description must cede reasonably to establish the total, and reference to these previous sales gives immediate and arithmetically conclusive answer as to how the error, slight in fact, but gross in effect, occurred in the description necessary to make the total acreage.
Similarly, in the same practical manner, anyone intending to deal with the property after the Crichton sale had the direct or implied knowledge that in the sale from Neal of the one-third of this property to A. Goodwill in 1887, the description is as follows:
This is the third proof that the total of 520.70 acres is reached by the addition of the "East half" to the "South West quarter" and that the "East ½ of S.W. ¼" is a mistake.
There is a further decisive argument. It is one arithmetically inevitable in the interpretation of this deed from Neal to Crichton, not to be gathered by oral evidence, but found strictly in deductions made from its language, and all within the four corners of the instrument.
The Parish of Webster is free of Spanish or French grants. It was surveyed under United States governmental supervision. The Surveyor General surveys for the Parish of Webster made in 1837 are on file in the alienation records and are a notice to the world. The anterior records (three in number) show that Township 18 North, Range 9 West, is the description of the Neal property. Then a reference to the Surveyor General's map of this township and range will disclose that Section 7, using the description "East ½ plus" and not "of", was intended because of the total of 520.70. Why? There is the following immediate computation to be gained from this map, using Section 7:
Section Seven
Acres
"East ½" 40.84 × 6 ............ 245.04
34.13 × 1 ............ 34.13
35.33 × 1 ............ 35.33
"Lot 17" .......................................... 2.00
"S.W. ¼" 40.84 × 4 ............ 163.36
"S.E. ¼ of N.W. ¼" 40.84 × 1 ............ 40.84
______
520.70
As a further corroboration that it is Township 18 North, Range 9 West, and not Township 18 North, Range 10 West (the "10 West" being borrowed from the second paragraph of the description of the deed, which the recording officer failed to show as a second paragraph, but joined to the first paragraph), any buyer after Crichton could check the next description on the same governmental map, the description giving 424.64 acres in Section 8, and the following result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Healthcare Pa. v. Heritage Valley Health Sys.
...contains an independent, complete thought and each ends with a period for punctuation."); United States v. 12,918.28 Acres of Land in Webster Par., La., 61 F. Supp. 545, 552 (W.D. La. 1945) ("The period as a punctuation mark severs as distinctly as if there were two paragraphs."). In contra......
-
United States v. 12,918.28 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...1947, 159 F.2d 303, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming this court (cf. United States v. 12,918.28 Acres of Land in Webster Parish, La., et al., D.C., 1945, 61 F.Supp. 545) relative to this exact tract of land, held, that Crichton had not exercised such possession that ......
-
Crichton v. Saucier
...and for an analysis of the rather complicated details and his reasoning upon them, forbearing a repetition. United States v. 12,918.28 Acres of Land, D.C., 61 F.Supp. 545. On the main points now stressed we 1. One contention is that the Wachovia Bank's deed of August 24, 1942, did not pass ......