Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Deery v. Cray (77 U.S. 263) — Opinion of the Court

In other words, if the uncertainty was a patent ambiguity, an uncertainty which inhered in the essence of the description, rendering it incapable of being applied to the subject-matter, then the deed was void absolutely, and should not have been admitted. Otherwise it was well admitted.
But this does not seem to us to be character of the instrument. All the boundaries given are well known and easily identified, except one. This one is to separate the southwestern half of the manor from the other half. The division is to be into moieties exactly equal in quantity.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Deery v. Cray (77 U.S. 263) — Opinion of the Court

The cases relied on by counsel for the plaintiff to show that the courts of Maryland have established a different doctrine, are not inconsistent with what we have said.
In Fenwick v. Floyd's Lessee, the land was described as 'part of Resurrection Manor, containing 251 acres more or less.' Resurrection Manor was a large tract of 4000 acres, and the sheriff levied on and sold 251 acres of it, with no other description than that just stated.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature