Chipman v. Briggs
WM. W. CHIPMAN and GIDEON AUGHINBAUGH v. MARTIN C. BRIGGS and JAMES McGOWAN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
MURRAY, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
Where a tract of land sold for a gross sum is described by specific boundaries, and as containing so many acres, more or less—the vendor cannot recover for the overplus, if on a survey it be ascertained that more land is contained in the tract than the precise amount named in the deed.
In this case there, does not appear to have been an understanding for the sale of any exact quantity of land.
. The findings of fact by the Court below, are conclusive upon the light of the appellant.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.