Where a property being conveyed was said to be more particularly described or delineated on a plan, the verbal description prevailed but this was only because the court treated the combined expressions as meaning no more than ‘for the purpose of identification only’. Lord Denning MR: ‘In this case we have the words ‘for the purpose of identification only’. Those words seem to me to show quite clearly that the plan is only to be used to look and see roughly where the area is situated and not in any way to define the metes and bounds thereof.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
Unreported, February 11 1977
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Druce v Druce CA 11-Feb-2003
The parties disputed the extent of land conveyed. The conveyance described the plan as for identification purposes only but the decsription went on to say that it was ‘more particularly delineated on’.
Held: In the circumstances the plan would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235516
