Summary

Joseph P. Bradley Carpentier v. Montgomery — Opinion of the Court

In grants of real estate it is not always necessary to describe it by metes and bounds, or by a reference to actual or artificial monuments, nor by courses and distances. If the tract granted have a well-known name, and the boundaries of the tract known by that name are notorious and well-defined, a grant of the tract by its name would, doubtless, convey the title to the whole. In like manner, a grant describing the tract by reference to the known occupation of the grantor or another-or to another instrument containing a sufficient description of the premises-would be sufficient.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley Carpentier v. Montgomery — Opinion of the Court

Now the grant on which the appellant's counsel relies as conferring perfect title is not the certifying document above referred to, but the previous act of directing possession to be given to Peralta, and the actual delivery of possession to him. It is perfectly manifest that Peralta could not have been put into manual possession of several leagues of land. He could only have been put into possession of a certain part or parts in the name of all; and the exterior boundaries of the tract must have been indicated by language or monuments.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley Carpentier v. Montgomery — Opinion of the Court

It would be a contradiction in terms to say that a specific tract was granted if there was nothing in the grant by which it could be ascertained with reasonable certainty what particular parcel was intended to be conveyed.'
We entirely concur in these views; and, therefore hold that the title of Peralta was an imperfect title, and necessarily required confirmation in order to vest a full legal estate in private parties.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature