| Mo. | Jun 6, 1892
This was an action of ejectment to recover one acre of land, of which the defendant, Mary Nelson, was the owner at the date of the tax judgment hereafter mentioned. The plaintiff’s title is a sheriff’s deed based upon a sale under a special execution issued upon a judgment for $113.45, rendered by the Henry county circuit court in April, 1888, in a suit of the collector against said Mary Nelson to recover delinquent taxes for the years 1877 to and including 1885.
The land owned by the defendant at the date of the tax judgment and sued for in this case is described as follows: “One acre, beginning twenty feet north of the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 2, township 43, range 24; thence north six and thirty-three-hundredths rods; thence west twenty-five and thirty-two-hundredths rods; thence south six and thirty-three-hundredths rods; thence r east twenty-five and thirty-two-hundredths rods to the place of beginning, containing one acre, more or less.”
The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff for two hundred and eight feet off of the east end of the land described in the petition, thus holding that the sheriff’s deed described one acre in a square form in the southeast corner of the forty acres, apd that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover so much of the land sued for as was included in the boundaries of a square acre in the corner. From that judgment the defendant only appealed.
It was held in Wilkinson v. Roper, 74 Ala. 140" court="Ala." date_filed="1883-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wilkinson-v-roper-6511703?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6511703">74 Ala. 140, that a description of “ten acres of the land off the northwest corner” of a named sub division was sufficient and not void for uncertainty. Says the court: “It calls for a quadrangle, of equal sides, extending to the northwest corner.” That was a conveyance between parties, and not a sheriff’s deed. In Lessee of Walsh v. Ringer, 2 Ohio, 327, the sheriff levied upon and sold the land as “seventy acres, it being and lying in the southwest corner of the southwest, quarter of section 11, township 12; range 5, of the lands sold at Steuben-ville.” In disposing of the objection that the description was vague and uncertain the court said: “That corner is a base point from which two sides of the land conveyed shall extend in equal distance, so, as to include by parallel lines the quantity conveyed. From this point the section lines extend north and east so as to fix the boundary west and south, the east and north boundaries only are to be established by construction,
It is very true that an acre of land may be laid off in the corner of a forty-acre tract in various shapes, and still be in the corner in a certain sense; but the words “one acre, being the southeast corner” of the said forty acres, without further descriptive' words, mean an acre in a square form.
This would be.our conclusion in the absence of any authority to the contrary, but it is strengthened by the cases just cited which are quite in point. The description is, therefore, sufficiently definite and certain. It describes an acre in a square form in the corner.
This evidence and the giving of the instruction cannot, however, operate as a reversal of the judgment, for the court construed the deed to mean just what we have said it does mean, regardless of the evidence and instruction.
The judgment is affirmed.