In anticipation of becoming the owner of a tract of land, S agreed to convey to a water company that portion of the land which the company would require for its reservoir. On acquiring the land, S conveyed the tract to F "except about 25/100 acres on the westerly side to be deeded to the Centralia Water Works Co." Ten days later, S conveyed to the water company "all that part . . . that is now or shall hereafter be, covered by water in the reservoir of said . . . company to high water mark in flood time . . . as said reservoir is located, surveyed and staked out . . .. " P held under a lease from F's grantee. Later S conveyed to D the west 16 1/2 foot strip of this same tract and D entered thereupon and drilled. D contended that the deed of S to F should be construed as excepting a uniform strip off the west end of the tract, which strip remained in S until the grant to D. D also contended that the deed from S to the water company was too indefinite to be valid.P sued to enjoin D from entering any part of the land. Held, for P, Shaving parted with all his title by the conveyances to F and the water company, and therefore having nothing to convey to D. The exception in the deed to F, while too uncertain to warrant the construction asked by D, is valid since it constitutes a means of determining the excepted part so that extrinsic evidence is admissible to locate and describe the excepted part. Texas Co. v. Wall, (C. C. A. 7th, 1939) 107 F. (2d) 45.
Michigan Law Review,
DEEDS - EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS - USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO INTERPRET UNCERTAIN EXCEPTIONS - EXCEPTION TO GRANT DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT TO BE DRAWN,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol39/iss2/15