This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1826 Excerpt: ...parties did not mean to effect their purpose by the use of the general description or designation of the lot, by its number on the plot of Baltimore-town, or to rely upon it as the description of the thing intended to be conveyed; for if they did, they would not unnecessarily have resorted to another more precise. The object, therefore, of inserting the courses -at)3 distances, seems to have been fo designate particularly 181S. What was intended tu be conveyed. To rely upon the number of the lot alone for coming at the intention of the parties, would be to exclude the courses nnd distances, or qualifying expressions, in violation of the rule, that "the construction be made upon the entire deed, and not merely upon disjointed parts of it," the courses and distances evidently appearing upon the plots in the cause, not to be co-extensive with the whole lot. But if the rule is adhered to, each part of the description will have its office, the number of the lot, as designating the general object of the parties in pointing out the place or thing to which the courses and distances are meant to be applied, and the courses and distances as restricting the general object, and denning the particular part of it intended to be conveyed.-There is no necessity for rejecting either part of the description but the generality of the first part may, and I think ought to be restricted by the latter, to come at the intention of the parties, and thus every part of the deed may be gratified. It is laid down in books of authority, that if a tnan grants "hi manor of Dale?' without saying where it lies, it is a good grant, and the whole manor passes; but that if he grants "hi manor pf Dale m Dale, '" and a part of the manor lies in Dale, and a part in so...