Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different tenants as to different parts, and it was more particularly described and ‘shown for identification purposes only on the plan attached.’
Held: The plan prevailed, because only the land occupied by one of the tenants was known by the name stated, the acreage was approximate (and the area in dispute was only one twelfth of an acre), and the other tenant was no longer in occupation (having sublet), so that none of those three factors in the description was reliable.
Earl Loreburn said: ‘We must look at the conveyance in the light of the circumstances which surrounded it in order to ascertain what was therein expressed as the intention of the parties.’
Lord Parker said that when looking at extrinsic evidence, the court must ‘do the best it can to arrive at a true meaning of the parties upon a fair consideration of the language used.’ He went on: ‘There is nothing on the face of the indenture to show that any one of these descriptions in any way conflicts with any other. In order, however, to identify the parcels in a conveyance resort can always be had to extrinsic evidence.’ and ‘It appears to me that of the three descriptions in question the only certain and unambiguous description is that by reference to the map. With this map in his hand any competent person could identify on the spot the various parcels of land therein coloured red. The other descriptions could only be rendered certain by extrinsic evidence.’
Lord Sumner discussed the use of several different methods of describing the extent of the land in question: ‘If, however, several different species of description are adopted, risk of uncertainty at once arises, for if one is full, accurate, and adequate, any others are otiose if right, and misleading if wrong. Conveyancers, however, have to do the best they can with the facts supplied to them, and it is only now and again that confusion arises.’
Lord Parker, Earl Loreburn, Lord Sumner
[1915] AC 900
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .
Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Cited – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Approved – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
Cited – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012
The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area . .
Cited – Armbrister and Another v Lightbourn and Another PC 11-Dec-2012
(Bahamas) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.182548
