18 Burgon v. Cabanne, 42 Minn. 267; 44 N. W. 118.

19 Lauder v. Peoria, etc., Society, 71 111. App. 475; Lingeman v. Shirk, 15 Ind. App. 432; 43 N. E. 33.

20 Alabama Mineral Land Co. v. Jackson, 121 Ala. 172; 77 Am. St. Rep. 46; 25 So. 709. (Citing Amburger v. Marvin, 4 E. D. Smith 393; Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50; 4 Am. St. Rep. 814; 28 N. W. 796; Yates v. Martin, 2 Pinney (Wis.)

171; Hayes v. Burkham, 51 Ind. 130; Smith v. Bowler, 2 Disney (Ohio) 153; Pulse v. Hamer, 8 Or. 252; Ledford v. Ferrell, 34 N. C. 285; disapproving Lingeman v. Shirk, 15 Ind. App. 432; 43 N. E. 33.)

21 Scanlon v. Oliver, 42 Minn. 538; 44 N. W. 1031.

22 Fox v. Courtney, 111 Mo. 147; 20 S. W. 20.

23 Diamond Plate-Glass Co. v. Tennell, 22 Ind. App. 132; 52 N. E. 168.

24 Reed v. Lowe, 8 Utah 39; 29 Pac. 740.

It is not, however, necessary to give a technical description of the realty bargained for.29 A description of realty by its popular name, together with a sufficiently definite location,30 as in a given county,31 or on a certain island,32 or within a given distance and in a certain direction from a specified city,33 or in a certain range, township and section,34 have each been held sufficiently definite. A description giving section, range and township, and describing the tract as the "Merchant Farm,"35 or describing the land as "the Burns farm,"36 have each been held sufficient. Merely giving its name without the state or county in which it is located, as calling it the "Baldwin Place" without otherwise identifying its owner,37 is insufficient.

25Edens v. Miller, 147 Ind. 208; 46 X. E. 526.

26 Jones v. Tye, 93 Ky. 390; 20 S. W. 388; Vickers v. Henry, 110 N. C. 371; 15 S. E. 115.

27 Ross v. Purse, 17 Colo. 24; 28 Pac. 473; Langert v. Ross, 1 Wash. 250; 24 Pac. 443.

28 Ross v. Allen, 45 Kan. 231; 10 L. R. A. 835; 25 Pae. 570. (The land was described by certain street numbers on Delaware Street of " the city proper." It was dated at "Leavenworth," and did not otherwise show where the land was.)

29 Sheldon v. Carter, 90 Ala. 380; 8 So. 63; Baker v. Hall, 158 Mass 361; 33 X. E. 612.

30 Hayes v. O'Brien. 149 111. 403: 23 L. R. A. 555; 37 N. E. 73; Hollis v. Burgess, 37 Kan. 487; 15 Pac. 536; Springer v. Kleinsorge, 83 Mo. 152; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89; 32 Pac. 1027.

31 Cunyus v. Lumber Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 290; 48 S. W. 1106.

32 House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89; 32 Pac. 1027.

33 Sailor v. Gilfillan, 73 Mo. App. 152.

34 Hayes v. O'Brien, 149 111. 403; 23 L. R. A. 555; 37 N. E. 73. (The part of a specified farm east of & right of way.)

35 Hayes v. O'Brien, 149 111. 403; 23 L. R. A. 555; 37 N. E. 73.

36 Mull v. Smith, - Mich. -; 94 X. W. 183.

37 Wood v. Zeigler, 99 Tenn. 515; 42 S. W. 447.

A description of realty as located at or near a given place and owned by a given person is sufficient if no other realty within the locality described is owned by such person.38 Thus a description of land as vendor's "place in Stratford, Conn., containing 15 acres more or less,"39 or of "one one and a half story frame dwelling house with barn and out buildings and all land now being used in connection therewith, being about seven acres more or less situated in Sagus Center, Essex County,"40 each is sufficient. This rule has been carried so far in some jurisdictions that "twenty-four acres of land at T-------" has been held to import land owned by the promisor and hence sufficiently described.41

If the vendor owns more than one tract in the locality specified, a description of land as in that locality and of a specified area may be sufficiently definite.42 Without additional aid from a description of area and the like, mere description by the owner and location is not sufficient where such owner owns more than one piece of property in such location.43 However, if the vendor contracts to convey an undivided third of all his realty, no further description is necessary.44 A description of land by reference to the title whereby it was acquired,45 as land received by vendor from his father,46 or land bought from a given person,47 is sufficient. So a description of land by its present ownership, as land in which the two contracting par-ties have a joint equitable estate,48 is sufficient. A description of land by the use to which it is put is sufficient. Thus a sale of vendor's "land where he now lives,"49 or of his "home place and storehouse,"50 complies with the statute. A contract for the sale of realty, describing its boundaries so that they may be located,51 or giving section numbers,52 or lot numbers,53 not with technical accuracy, yet so that the land can be located from the description in view of the surrounding circumstances, is sufficient. A description giving the city, street and street number is sufficient.54 Thus a description of realty as "house and land No. 10 Howard Street," even if it erroneously adds "belonging to A" when it in fact belongs to A and two others, is sufficient.55 If the number is omitted, being left blank, the description has been held to be sufficient.56 If the street and street number are given, but not the city, the description is insufficient.57 A description of land which gives one boundary, the direction of an adjoining side and the area of the tract conveyed, is sufficient.58 Abbreviations do not make a description insufficient if they are such that one familiar with the land described would be able to identify the land by means of such description.59 If, however, it is necessary to employ oral evidence of the intention direct to show the realty contracted for, the description is insufficient. Thus a description of realty as "the southeast of twenty-five, nine, Kingman, Kansas," is insufficient.60

38 Described by the city in which it is located. Hodges v. Rowing, 58 Conn. 12; 7 L. R. A. 87; 18 Atl. 979; St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, 42 Minn. 73; 43 N. W. 782. Described by the city and the street therein on which the land is located. White v. Breen, 106 Ala. 159; 32 L. R. A. 127; 19 So. 59; Scanlon v. Geddes, 112 Mass. 15. Described as a store lot on the corner of two given streets in a given city. White v. Mooers, 86 Me. 62; 69 Atl. 936.

39 Hodges v. Rowing, 58 Conn. 12; 7 L. R. A. 87; 18 Atl. 979.

40 Sanders v. Boyer, 152 Mass. 141; 9 L. R. A. 255; 25 N. E. 86.

67

41 Plant v. Bourne (1897), 2 Ch. 281; so Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545; 96 Am. Dec. 671.

42 Gray v. Smith, 76 Fed. 525.

43Doherty v. Hill, 144 Mass. 465; 11 N. E. 581.

44Moayon v. Moayon, - Ry. -; 60 L. R. A. 415; 72 S. W. 33.

45 Ewing v. Stanley (Ry.), 69 S. W. 724; Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick (Mass.) 227; 26 Am. Dec. 657.

46 Ryder v. Looniis, 161 Mass. 161; 36 N. E. 836; Parks v. Bank. 97 Mo. 130; 10 Am. St. Rep. 295; 11 S. W. 41; affirming 31 Mo. App. 12.

47 Newman v. Iron Co., 80 Fed. 228; 25 C. C. A. 382.

48 Black v. Crowther, 74 Mo. App. 480. For somewhat similar facts see Easton v. Thatcher, 7 Utah 99; 25 Pac. 728.

49 Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Hendricks, 106 N. C. 485; 11 S. E. 568.

50 Henderson v. Perkins, 94 Ky. 207; 21 S. W. 1035.

51 Kyle v. Rhodes, 71 Miss. 487; 15 So. 40; Sherman v. Simpson, 121 N. C. 129; 28 S. E. 186.

52 Ryan v. United States, 136 U. S. 68; Mann v. Higgins, 83 Cal. 66; 23 Pac. 206: Wilson v. Emig, 44 Kan. 125; 24 Pac. 80; Combs v.

Scott, 76 Wis. 662; 45 N. W. 532.

53 St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton, 42 Minn. 73; 43 N. W. 782.

54 Claphan v. Barber, - N. J. Eq. - ;56 Atl. 370.

55 Tobin v. Larkin, 183 Mass. 389; 67 N. E. 340.

56 Bulkley v. Devine, 127 111. 406; 3 L. R. A. 330; 20 N. E. 16. (Possession having been taken under the lease.)

57 Ross v. Allen, 45 Kan. 231; 10 L. R. A. 835; 25 Pac. 570.

58Felty v. Calhoon, 139 Pa. St. 378; 21 Atl. 19.

59 Melone v. Ruffino, 129 Cal. 514; 79 Am. St. Rep. 127; 62 Pac. 93.