Summary

David Davis White v. Luning — Opinion of the Court

It would therefore be manifestly wrong, not to say absurd, to retain the call for the fence, and reject the call for the course and distance. The reason why monuments, as a general thing, in the determination of boundaries control courses and distances, is, that they are less liable to mistakes; but the rule ceases with the reason for it. If they are inconsistent with the calls for other monuments, and it is apparent from all the other particulars in the deed that they were inadvertently inserted, the reason for retaining them no longer exists, and they will be rejected as false and repugnant.
Source: Wikisource

David Davis White v. Luning — Opinion of the Court

It is rare, where so many field-notes of the survey of an irregularly shaped tract of land are incorporated in a deed, that there are so few mistakes. The courses and distances in this deed are numerous, and are all correct, except the last; and there the only error is in the course, which is easily corrected, as the call is for the post where the survey begins.
Source: Wikisource

David Davis White v. Luning — Opinion of the Court

Hence, a description in which the calls cannot be harmonized, and in which several of the calls for monuments and one for courses must be rejected to enclose the land, has not the certainty required by law.
A sheriff's deed does not, like a deed inter partes, admit of the consideration of extraneous circumstances to arrive at its intent. Its intent must be found in its terms; and, if they are contradictory, it is void, unless the circumstances are such as to entitle the grantee to have the deed reformed.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature