Real Estate Law 11Th Edition Jennings Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Real Estate Law 11th Edition Jennings
Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/real-estate-law-11th-edition-jennings-solutions-manual/
CHAPTER SEVEN
DESCRIBING LAND INTERESTS
OBJECTIVES: 1. To help students understand the various methods of describing land interests
2. To help students understand the importance of accurate and complete land descriptions
RESOURCES:
Burby, Real Property, Section 887.

Jennings, “From the Courts,” 38 Real Est. L. J. 66 (Summer 2009).
Makar & Makar, “Geographic Information Systems: Legal and Policy Implications,” 69 Fla. B.J. 44 (Nov. 1995).
Melton, “What We Teach When We Teach Construction Law,” 29-SUM Construction Law. 8 (Summer 2009).
Onstrud, “Law and Information Policy for Spatial Databases: A Research Agenda,” 35 Jurimetrics J. 377 (1995).
Phillips, “A Portal to Reliable Real Estate Data or a Door to Nowhere? – A Look at How State and Local
Dissemination Policies Have Impacted the Development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and Geospatial
One-Stop Portal,” 34 Real Est. L. J. 9 (Summer, 2005).
"Property Misdescriptions," 137 Solicitors Journal 315 (April 1993).
Zerman, “Don’t Wing It! Practical Safeguards for Effective Mortgage Modifications,” 23-JUN Prob. & Prop. 12
(May/June 2009).
CASES:
Boca Petroco, Inc. v. Petroleum Realty II, 666 S.E.2d 12, 15 (2008).
Hahn v. Love, 2012 WL 2153675 (Tex. App. 2012).
In re Thulis, 474 B.R. 668 (W.D. Wis. 2012).
Wallboard, Inc. v. St. Cloud Mall, LLC, 758 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
LECTURE OUTLINE:
I. Methods of Describing Land Interests
A. Metes and Bounds As a Means of Land Description – USE FIGURE 7.1 AND POWERPOINT SLIDES
7-1, 7-2, AND 7-3
1. Method of describing parcel by describing location of the boundary lines in relation to some
reference point
2. Important to use stable beginning point to insure endurance of description
CASE BRIEF: Gaut v. Daniel

293 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App. 2009)
FACTS: Miguel and Gloria Daniel filed suit against Anna Gonzalez (the administrator of the estate of Alice
and Abelardo Garcie, her parents and the original grantors of the 28 acres to the Daniels). The
Daniels also sued Lowell and Paula Gaut who claim ownership to 47.71 acres of land (that includes
the 28 acres conveyed to the Daniels) that they say they obtained via a warranty deed and as
good-faith purchases.
The trial court held that the description of the land in the deed to the Daniels was sufficient to
convey title and cancelled the Gauts’ deed. The Gauts appealed.
© 2017 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part, except for use as
permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website or school-approved learning
management system for classroom use.
- 102 -
ISSUES ON
APPEAL: Did the deed convey title to the Daniels? Was there a sufficient description to convey title?
DECISION: While parol evidence can be used to supplement deeds, the evidence must be referenced in the
deed. Here there was an insufficient metes and bounds description but nothing extrinsic to clarify it
other than use of the property. Such extrinsic evidence cannot be used because it is not
referenced within the four corners of the document. The description was insufficient and hence the
Daniels do not have title to the property.
ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS:
1. Why does the court not allow additional, extrinsic evidence to supplement what is in the deed? Because the
extrinsic evidence must be mentioned in the description and the extrinsic evidence being offered was not
mentioned in the description, but was an attempt to use circumstantial evidence when there was a failure to
obtain the appropriate documentation for land transfer.
2. What is the problem with the deed description? It is a poor metes and bounds description because it is not clear
where it begins and ends, and it was impossible to tell from the description itself what piece of land was involved.
3. What happens to the Daniels' rights to the property under this decision? They are no longer the owners of their
property – the Gauts get their title reverted back to them.
Emphasize PRACTICAL TIP on the dangers of relying on old descriptions.
ANSWER TO CONSIDER (7.1):
The trial court concluded that the property description contained in the quitclaim deed did not sufficiently describe the
property so that it could be located and identified. Specifically, the trial court noted that the quitclaim deed had only
two (of potentially three or four) boundaries recorded in the description – “Above by Thibodaux Brickworks” and
“Below by Julia Davis.” The trial court also noted that the quitclaim deed had an inadequate designation of the
dimensions of the property, as it first stated “35′ x 545′” but then stated “Less Lots Sold" "approximately 303′ left.”
The quitclaim deed itself fails to fully describe the property's boundaries and size. And although there appears to be
references to other documents within the description – purportedly to deeds or other documents filed in the Lafourche
Parish conveyance records – the referenced documents or instruments were not made part of the record. Since we
are prohibited from speculating when interpreting the quitclaim deem, we are unable to determine whether those
references make the description of the property clear. Dickerson v. Davis, 2010 WL 4273178 (La. App. 2010).
B. Plat Map
1. Common method of description for residential property – particularly when such property is located
in a subdivision
2. Map is recorded in appropriate land office where records are kept
3. Map contains the following
a. Names of streets
b. Lots with numbers and sizes
c. Indications of alleys and easements
d. List of covenants and descriptions
The description is sufficient to "allow the conclusion that the mutual or common intent of the parties to the writing was
to deal with the particular property...." The trial judge allowed the admission of extrinsic evidence (the plat map) to
clarify the property description. Wilson v. Head, 707 So.2d 127 (La. App. 1998).
- 103 -
ANSWER TO ETHICAL ISSUE:
Our Supreme Court has held “that determining which property is legally secured by a deed of trust is a proper issue
and element of proof before the Clerk of Superior Court. Therefore, if a party contends that the property is not
secured,” as petitioners here do, “then such contention may be raised as a defense to the four requisite findings
under N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16(d).” In re Foreclosure of Michael Weinman Associates, 333 N.C. 221, 228, 424 S.E.2d
385, 389 (1993). Additionally, this Court has specifically held that the forgery of loan documents is a proper legal
defense to a lender's assertion that a “valid debt” exists. Espinosa, 135 N.C.App. at 308, 520 S.E.2d 108 at 111.
Thus, the trial judge did not exceed his authority by examining the underlying validity of the loan documents. As we
held in Espinosa, such inquiry relates to the finding of a “valid debt” under General Statutes section 45-21.16. The
trial judge properly concluded as a matter of law that “the debt claimed by the lender/creditor pursuant to this Note is
not valid.” The court held that there could be no foreclosure unless and until the description questions and issues
were clarified. In re Hudson, 642 S.E.2d 485 (N.C. App. 2007).
C. Government Survey as a Method of Description – USE FIGURE 7.2 AND POWERPOINT SLIDES 7-4
AND 7-5
1. Done in 1785 to simplify subdivision of huge parcels
2. Basic lines
a. Prime or principal meridians
i. Run north to south

ii. 35 prime meridians altogether
iii. Usually named according to their location – Salt Lake, Gila and Salt Rivers, etc.
b. Baselines
i. Run east to west

ii. 32 baselines altogether
3. Guidelines
a. Placed to compensate for curving of the earth's surface

b. Placed every 24 miles
c. Guide meridians placed north to south
d. Parallels placed east to west
e. Result is 24 mile squares
4. Townships
a. Each 24 mile square formed by guide meridians and parallels and is broken down into squares
i. 16 in total
ii. Six miles square
b. Called townships – refer to text illustration − USE FIGURE 7.3 AND POWERPOINT SLIDE 7-6
c. Numbered according to their distance from the prime meridians and baselines
Example – first row north of baseline will always be Township 1 North and first row south will
be Township 1 South (T1N - T1S); first row east of prime meridian will be Range 1 East and
first row west will be Range 1 West (R1E - R1W)
d. East/west measurements are ranges, and north/south measurements are townships
The following diagram provides the full description of all 16 squares in the 24 mile square.
- 104 -
PARALLEL (First Parallel North)
G R4W R3W R2W R1W P R1E

U T4N T4N T4N T4N R T4N
I I
D R4W R3W R2W R1W M R1E
E T3N T3N T3N T3N E T3N
M R4W R3W R2W R1W M R1E

E T2N T2N T2N T2N E T2N
R R
R5W I R4W R3W R2W R1W I R1E
T1N D T1N T1N T1N T1N D T1N
I I
A A
N N
BASELINE R1W R1E

T1S T1S
A = W-1/2 or NE-1/4 of NW-1/4 D = N-1/2 of the SW-1/4

B = NW-1/4 of NE-1/4 E = S-1/2 of the SW-1/4
C = SE-1/4 of NE-1/4
5. Each township is divided into 36 one-mile squares − USE FIGURE 7.4 AND POWERPOINT SLIDE
7-7
a. Each called a section

b. Numbered in a right/left – left/right direction starting in upper right hand corner
c. Each section consists of 640 acres
d. Describe portions of sections by referring to their fractional directional location in the square
PRACTICAL TIP: Proof deeds, right down to “ofs” and “froms”.
This case turns on what is obviously a typographical error in the range number of the property description contained
in the preamble to the quitclaim deed that purported to convey fee title to the Pierces [Appellants]. The strip is
described as being located in Section 1, Township 45 North, Range 4 West, rather than Range 5 West where the
strip was in fact located. The error would make no sense if the quitclaim deed is read in conjunction with the deed to
the land – the error is obvious.
Respondents claimed that the mistake in range number caused the deed to be totally defective so as to not convey
the 20–foot strip at all. However, this does not follow the established principles of deed interpretation. Courts “reject
an interpretation that conveys nothing in favor of one that conveys something.” “We will declare a deed void for
uncertainty of description only where, after resorting to oral or other extrinsic proof, that which was intended by the
parties remains a ‘mere matter of conjecture.’” If a deed allows for one reasonably skilled in determining land
locations to figure out the location of the property, the description is considered sufficient.
Here, the quitclaim deed would convey nothing if read literally, with Range 4 West instead of Range 5 West. This is
not the favored means of deed interpretation. Further, both professional land surveyors who testified at trial testified
they believed the range number to be a mistake, and that they still found the 20–foot roadway strip easily even with
the wrong range number listed. Both agreed this was clearly a mistake, citing as evidence: prior deeds and surveys of
record, the metes and bounds description in the body of the deed after the preamble, the reference to the land being
- 105 -
in Gasconade County and not several miles away in Franklin County, and their own physical inspections of the
property and the monuments from prior surveys they found. The two surveyors were reasonably skilled in determining
land locations and had no trouble determining what 20-foot strip the quitclaim deed was meant to convey. Pierce v.
Sanderlin, 460 S.W.3d 9 (Mo. App. 2014).
II. Adequacy of Descriptions – USE POWERPOINT SLIDES 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, AND 7-11
Must describe so that only one possible piece of land can be described
A. Description by Popular Name
1. May be insufficient where landowner owns more than one piece
2. May be insufficient where the name is issued for another tract
CASE BRIEF: 303, LLC v. Born

823 N.W.2d 269 (Wis. App. 2012)
FACTS: On September 18, 2003, the Borns accepted a written offer from 303, LLC to purchase the Borns'
fifty-acre farm and home. The sale closed on November 6, 2003. Neither the warranty deed nor any
of the closing documents memorialized the right of first refusal nor identified the “remaining
acreage” referred to in the written offer to purchase. Pursuant to the lease-back provision, the
Borns rented back the fifty-acre parcel and continued to live on and farm the land. No written lease
for the fifty acres was executed. The Borns owned approximately 128 acres of land in September
2003, leaving the Borns with nearly eighty acres of property after they sold the fifty-acre parcel to
303, LLC; some of the land was contiguous to the fifty-acre parcel and some was not.
Walter Born died unexpectedly in 2004. Alice Born continued to live on and farm the land. In 2005,
Alice sublet approximately thirty-four of the fifty acres to Scott and Paulette Ditter. Going forward,
Alice utilized approximately twelve acres for her own activities of pasturing cows and hay
operations. The Ditters paid rent to Alice and also helped her with the farming activities previously
performed by her husband, including cutting and baling hay for Alice's cows.
Alice mailed 303, LLC a USDA crop form in 2005 requesting 303, LLC allow the Ditters to report
crops on the 303, LLC property. 303, LLC refused consent, asserting that Alice and Walter were to
farm the land rather than sublet it to other people. 303, LLC did not take further action.
On October 24, 2005, the Ditters offered to buy a 28.5-acre parcel owned by Alice. Alice accepted
the offer and the transaction closed on December 22, 2005, with the knowledge of 303, LLC. On
February 12, 2009, the Ditters offered to buy an 8.5-acre parcel owned by Alice. Alice accepted the
offer and the transaction closed on April 7, 2009.
On June 10, 2009, 303, LLC sued Alice for breach of contract and the Ditters for tortious
interference with contract related to the “disregard” of 303, LLC's contractual right of first refusal on
Alice's “remaining acreage.” 303, LLC's claim against Alice also alleged she had breached her
contract with 303, LLC by subletting the thirty-four acres to the Ditters.
The trial court found that the phrase “remaining acreage” in the contract was too indefinite to meet
the statute of frauds requirements, and the case was dismissed.
ISSUE ON
APPEAL: Was the description “remaining acreage” adequate to enforce the contract?
DECISION: The test to employ when land is not specifically identified in a written contract is not what the
parties (or even the “reasonable man”) intended, but what the contract in fact describes. Before
parol evidence can be used in the context of the statute of frauds the description in the conveyance
must furnish some foundation, link or key to the oral or extrinsic testimony that identifies the
property. For example, the “key” or “link” provided by the description of “enclosed by a fence” in a
contract for the sale of property lends sufficient definiteness to the property description such that
- 106 -
parol evidence provided by a surveyor related to the fence would allow a third party to pinpoint a
specific property. There is no written link to specifically identify what property was meant by
“remaining acreage” in 303, LLC's offer to purchase.
“Remaining acreage” is not sufficiently specific such that a person might know to a reasonable
certainty from examining the offer to purchase which Born parcel or parcels the right of first refusal
referred to. “[R]emaining acreage” does not provide a key or link to what specific land attached to
the right of first refusal, and therefore, any parol or extrinsic evidence would be improper as the
evidence would be offered for what the parties intended rather than for what the written
conveyance described.
As the description “remaining acreage” is, on its face, insufficient to identify the specific property,
parol evidence would not be admissible under the statute of frauds.
As “remaining acreage” is too indefinite to satisfy the statute of frauds, we affirm the circuit court's
dismissal of 303, LLC's action grounded upon a claim of right of first refusal.
1. What would have made the description adequate? If there was some kind of key or point from which the
remaining acreage could have been determined.
2. What opportunities did 303, LLC have to object that it did not use? Did that have a bearing on the court’s
decision? When the land was leased, when the crop form was sent – the objections could have been made so
that the issue of the option could have been raised sooner.
3. What advice can you give to buyers and sellers based on this case? The contract has to be as clear as the deed
to satisfy the statute of frauds. You must be clear which property is being sold and there must be an adequate
description. If there is not an adequate description – get it firmed up so that the contract is clear.
B. Description by Street Number
1. Numbers and streets can change
2. Generally insufficient
CASE BRIEF: Hardey v. Shell

144 So.3d 668 (Fla. App. 2014)
FACTS: The Hardeys and the Shells own neighboring properties fronting on the east side of Hickory
Boulevard in Bonita Beach, Florida. The Shells' lot is situated between Hickory Boulevard and the
side of a natural cove of Estero Bay. The Shells' lot is so narrow that the back of their home is built
on pilings over the water. The Hardeys' lot is south of the Shells' lot; the Hardeys' lot is wider at 100
feet by 100 feet and extends farther to the east than the Shells' lot. The cove of Estero Bay runs
along the eastern side of the Shells' lot and ends at the northern line of the Hardeys' lot; the cove
frontage is the only waterfront on either lot. Both properties have seawalls. The Hardeys bought
their property in 1992. The Shells acquired their property in 2009 from Mr. Shell's LLC, which had
purchased the property in 2005.
In 2010, Mr. Shell laid claim to the Hardeys' waterfront, asserting that the Hardeys' entire waterfront
and dock were included in the legal description of the Shells' lot. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Shell
erected a fence across the Hardeys' pool deck and along the entire length of the Hardeys'
waterfront, about three feet back from the Hardeys' seawall. The fence was erected on cemented
metal posts, some of which were drilled into the Hardeys' pool deck.
The problems the parties experienced were the result of an initial flaw in the legal description. The
legal description of the Shells' property changed sometime between 1955 and 1971. In 1955, the
Langleys conveyed what is now the Shells' property to Marian Buchanan, but the legal description
is defective and does not close; the 1955 deed describes the point of beginning as the water's edge
in the northeast corner of the lot, yet the fourth and final call ends at Hickory Boulevard in the
northwest corner and does not close at the water's edge in the northeast corner.
- 107 -
To remedy this problem with the description, the legal description to the property was changed
when Marian Buchanan sold the property to the Seils in 1971, but the new legal description still did
not close the property boundaries. The 1971 deed describes the point of beginning as the northeast
side of Hickory Boulevard, which is the northwest corner of the lot. The northern line of the lot then
runs northeasterly to the cove; the eastern line of the lot then runs southeasterly along the water;
the southern line of the lot then runs southwesterly 100 feet to Hickory Boulevard; the western line
of the lot runs northwesterly 100 feet to the point of beginning.
The problem with this description is that the fourth call seems to overshoot the northeast side of
Hickory Boulevard. The 1955 deed describes the southern line of the lot running 40 feet to Hickory
Boulevard, while the 1971 deed describes the southern line of the lot running 100 feet to Hickory
Boulevard. The legal description in the 1971 deed is the legal description by which the Shells took
title.
In 1979, the Franks owned what is now the Hardeys' property and replaced their old wooden
seawall with a new concrete one. The new seawall was constructed one and one-half feet out into
the water in front of the old one and the space between the two seawalls was filled with dirt. The
new seawall created a problem because the waters of the cove no longer intersected with the
common line between the two affected properties. The cove was now separated from the common
lot line by the new seawall and the small strip of land between the new seawall and the old sea
wall.
The altered description of the property and the construction of the improvements on the lot now
owned by the Hardeys caused much confusion among the property owners.
Shortly after the Hardeys acquired their property, Marjorie McLymond, who had purchased from the
Seils what is now the Shells' property, told Mr. Hardey that her legal description showed that her
southern lot line extended 100 feet and that she therefore owned the Hardeys' entire waterfront. Mr.
Hardey then learned that the Lee County Property Appraiser had depicted on the tax map the
Hardeys' waterfront strip as being part of Mrs. McLymond's lot.
Thereafter, in 1997, Mr. Hardey sued his sellers, their realtor, and Mrs. McLymond in an effort to
resolve the issue. The Lee County Property Appraiser corrected the tax map to reflect that the
disputed waterfront strip was part of the Hardeys' lot. Mrs. McLymond did not continue to assert a
right to the waterfront strip, and the Hardeys believed that the dispute had been resolved. The case
was ultimately dismissed when no one was actively litigating it. When the Shells bought their
property from Mrs. McLymond in 2005, she told them that the dispute had been resolved.
After the Shells erected the fence on the Hardeys' pool deck and asserted their right to the
waterfront property at issue in 2010, the Hardeys filed a complaint against the Shells. The Shells
made a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court found for the Shells based on the earlier litigation in which the matter seemed to be
resolved. The court also held that the property description disputed by the [Hardeys] had been in
place since at least 1971. Florida law has a statute of limitations on challenging deeds (Fla. St.
§95.321). After 20 years, no person or their successor in interest in the land can bring suit
challenging the description or deed.
The trial court found that at least 20 years had passed so that the case could not be continued. Mr.
Hardey appealed.
ISSUE ON
APPEAL: Was the deed valid and just requiring a technical correction or was it an invalid deed?
DECISION: In January 2010, the Shells first asserted their claim to the waterfront strip by expressing their
intention to remove the pilings of the Hardeys' dock. In May 2010, the Shells erected a fence
across the Hardeys' pool deck. These events created a present controversy between the Shells
and the Hardeys and an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the waterfront strip. At
that time, the necessary elements for a cause of action for a declaratory judgment had occurred.
The Hardeys' complaint was filed in June 2010, well within the four-year statute of limitation
applicable to the present controversy.
- 108 -
Moreover, the twenty-year limitation in section 95.231 does not bar the Hardeys' count for
declaratory relief. The purpose of such a statute is to “cure” or clear an existing title to real estate or
an interest in it, of formal irregularities, that is, of clouds, doubts and suspicions against the title
resulting from technical defects in the form or execution of deeds ... by limiting the time within which
such defects can be asserted to a stated time as measured from some event, such as their
recording.
However, “its curative effect extends only to correct technical defects in an otherwise valid deed
executed by the person(s) owning the property in question.” Section 95.231(2) “cannot validate
conveyances made by persons who have no possessory interest in the property. In other words, it
cannot be used to create a title where none existed before.”
The Shells have failed to show that there is no disputed issue regarding whether the 1971 deed
includes the waterfront strip. To the contrary, one surveyor opined that the waterfront strip is not
included in the Shells' lot, while a second surveyor was unable to conclude which lot included the
waterfront strip. Section 95.231 cannot be used to grant the Shells title in the waterfront strip where
none existed under the 1971 deed. Because the Shells have not demonstrated that the 1971 deed
in their chain of title indisputably conveys the waterfront strip at issue here, the trial court erred in
ruling that section 95.231 operates as a matter of law to bar the Hardeys' claim for declaratory
relief.
Who owns what is in dispute because the initial deed was invalid. The lower court must determine
who actually holds title to the cove strip.
ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS
1. What mistakes in the deeds caused the neighbors to have confusion and disputes? The initial description did not
have a closing point for the property. They tried to fix it in a follow-up deed, but still did not have a closing place
and so all the confusion about boundaries results.
2. What basis does the trial court use for granting summary judgment? The court relies on statutes of limitations for
challenging contracts (4 years) and deeds (20 years).
3. Explain why the appellate court found the trial court to be incorrect in its assessment of the case. The appellate
court says that if the deed was invalid from the get-go, it is not a question of challenging the deed, it is a question
of determining who owns what and how much. The case is much more serious than timing restrictions because
the inadequate description makes it impossible to determine what land passed and who owned how much and
where.
C. General Conveyances − Such as "All My Real Estate" are Inadequate
D. Impermanent Descriptions
1. Metes and bounds tied to movable or nonpermanent object
2. Create boundary problems and are insufficient
III. Interpretation of Descriptions – USE POWERPOINT SLIDES 7-12, 7-13, and 7-14
A. Construe Ambiguous Language Against the Seller/Grantor
B. If Two Descriptions are Available – Unambiguous One Used
C. Can Turn to Extrinsic Evidence to Clarify Ambiguities
1. Oral testimony
2. Related documents
3. Latent ambiguity – typing error – extrinsic evidence permitted
4. Patent ambiguity – parties never agreed – no extrinsic evidence is permissible
- 109 -
CASE BRIEF: Withington v. Derrick
572 A.2d 912 (Vt. 1990)
FACTS: The Withingtons and the Derricks dispute ownership of property as indicated in the text diagram.
The descriptions in their deeds contained ambiguities because they referred to adjacent owned lots
and had the wrong owners for the lots. The deeds referenced a right of way that did not exist and
the metes and bounds description did not close the property. The trial court awarded the segment
of property in dispute to the Derricks and the Withingtons appealed.
ISSUE ON
APPEAL: How should the deeds be clarified to determine title to the property in dispute?
DECISION: The court held that where there is a conflict between a plat map and a metes and bounds
description, the map will control. The deeds describe Lot 36 and on the map the boundaries are
clear. The unambiguous description by lot number should control over an ambiguous detailed
description. The Withingtons should have title.
1. What deed language created the confusion about ownership? The language that referred to the wrong owners
of the lot; the failure to close off the parcel and the reference to a non-existent right-of-way.
2. To whom does the trial court award title and why? What does the appellate court do? The trial court awards the
title to the Derricks relying on their more detailed description. The appellate court reversed the trial court's
decision.
3. In reviewing the deeds and the ambiguities, what rules does the appellate court follow? That the map and
reference to the lot number should control.
4. What is the significance of "Haff" versus "Hoff"? The deed uses the name Hoff, but there is no such landowner.
There is a Haff, but their lot is so far from the premises in dispute that the name problem really has no
significance in resolving the dispute.
CAUTION AND CONCLUSIONS − Review list of questions with students and the article on surveys and the things to
look for in using surveys.
ANSWERS TO CHAPTER PROBLEMS:
1. a. Use charts in text to point out locations.

b. Use charts in text for section. Diagram is as follows:
Acres: 20
c. Use charts in text.
2. Commencing at a point where the south side of Ash Street and the east side of Elm Street intersect and
proceeding thence 50 feet east parallel to the south side of Ash Street and from there south 50 feet parallel to
the east side of Elm Street and from there west 50 feet parallel to the south side of Ash Street and from there
north 50 feet along the east side of Elm Street to the point of beginning. If a metes and bounds description is not
enclosed, the court cannot complete the description and the description is inadequate.
- 110 -
3. Although the trial court gave no explanation for its decision, it appears that one question to be determined is the
sufficiency of the legal description in the deed from Nash (appellee) to Smith. The sufficiency of a property
description is a question of law for the court; the identity of the property is a question of fact. McCann v. Miller,
177 Ga.App. 53, 54(2), 338 S.E.2d 509 (1985). We cannot say that the legal description at issue was insufficient
as a matter of law. Perfection in legal descriptions of tracts of land is not required. “If the premises are so
referred to as to indicate... [the grantor's] intention to convey a particular tract of land, extrinsic evidence is
admissible to show the precise location and boundaries of such tract. The test as to the sufficiency of the
description of property contained in a deed is whether or not it discloses with sufficient certainty what the
intention of the grantor was with respect to the quantity and location of land therein referred to, so that its
identification is practicable.” Id. at 54, 338 S.E.2d 509. Further, it must be determined if the deed contains
sufficient “keys” to clarify any indefiniteness in the description. Wisener v. Gulledge, 251 Ga. 419, 421, 306
S.E.2d 642 (1983). The legal description of the property contains several distance calls which are rendered
indefinite by the phrase “more or less” and by running to undefined points; further, the general directional calls,
such as “northwesterly” and “southeasterly,” are unspecific. However, the description references a plat which
contains two keys to clarify the intention of the grantor. A scale of 1 inch to 200 feet and a designation for north
appear on the plat. Applying these two keys to the configurations on the plat, the exact distances and directions,
as well as the property conveyed, can be identified. See Grant v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Columbus, 229 Ga. 855(2),
194 S.E.2d 913 (1972).
Appellee apparently bases his motion for summary judgment on the argument that no genuine issue of material
fact exists because the documents disclose that the disputed property was not included in his deed to Smith.
Appellee supported his motion with a copy of the deed and his own affidavit which contains no explanation but
simply restates his contention. Appellant (Lawyers Title) submitted copies of all relevant documents and plats as
well as an affidavit of an expert title examiner who analyzed in detail the legal descriptions to support the
assertion that the disputed property was in fact conveyed by appellee. After a review of the record, we conclude
that appellee did not pierce the appellant's pleadings and did not carry his burden to show that there exists no
genuine issue of material fact. Waits v. Makowski, 191 Ga.App. 794(1), 383 S.E.2d 175 (1989). Accordingly, we
reverse the grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment and affirm the denial of appellant's motion for
summary judgment. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Nash, 396 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. 1990).
4. a. In Strousser v. Ebel, 120 N.W.2d 679 (1963), the court found the description to be too indefinite.
b. Held insufficient in Theel v. Jahns, 30 N.W.2d 189 (Wisc. 1947).
c. Held insufficient in Wiegand v. Gissal, 138 N.W.2d 740 (Wisc. 1965).
d. Acceptable in majority of states.
e. Acceptable in majority of states.
f. Could be insufficient if more land is owned or name is confusing.
g. Insufficient – does not tell location of section in terms of township and principal meridian.
5. No. Stadium isn't marked on map; tracks are not identified; impossible to tell what's being leased. Have
students read the River Road case for an In-Class Exercise. River Road Association v. South Texas Sports
River Road Association, 720 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1986).
6. The description in one lot was held sufficient while the description in the other lot was held to be insufficient. The
trial court's decision was affirmed. Have students read the Brasher case (located in In-Class Exercises) to
answer this problem. Brasher v. Tanner, 353 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. 1987).
7.
HALE STREET
200' 10' 10'

G
A 5'
R
Y
S
N T
R
E
E
T
- 111 -
8. A street address alone is insufficient, but a street address with a plat description is acceptable. This is a case in
which the information given could be cobbled together to find the description to be adequate.
9. The court held that, on the face of the agreement, it is impossible to identify the subject property with the degree
of certainty necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds. If the description is insufficient for a contract, it is
insufficient for a deed. TR-One, Inc. v. Lazz Development Co., Inc., 945 N.Y.S.2d 416 (N.Y. A.D. 2012).
10. Here, the legal description referenced lots partitioned and conveyed to Marie Rotter. The record discloses that
Rotter was initially deeded a one-quarter undivided interest in a larger parcel and that two lots were later
partitioned and conveyed to Rotter. We conclude that the reference to Rotter's deed and the terms “back lot” and
“frontage lot” were not sufficiently definite to adequately describe the location of the easement. The description
assumes that the only deed to Rotter was a partition deed and the lot that bordered the lake was a “frontage” lot.
The deed itself provides no basis for these assumptions. Accordingly, the description is inadequate. Kampinen
v. Bierman, 617 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. App. 2000).
IN-CLASS EXERCISE
1. Have students read the Brasher case below and respond to Chapter Problem #6:
BRASHER v. TANNER
353 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. 1987)
Joe Tanner, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, brought suit against employees of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who were responsible for the management of Sapelo Island. Tanner
brought suit because the employees prevented Tanner and others (plaintiffs) from landing their planes on two
lots on Sapelo Island. The DNR employees claimed the state owned the lots (Lot 7 and Lot 4) and Tanner's
claim to any interest or title in the lots was void. DNR claimed that the description in the deed to Tanner was
insufficient to pass title. The trial court granted a judgment NOV for the DNR employees on lot 4 and for
Tanneron on lot 7. Tanner appealed.
PER CURIAM
[P]laintiffs appeal the judgment NOV granted in favor of the DNR employees as to Lot 4. The trial court held that
the description in that deed is insufficient to convey any interest in that property to the plaintiffs. We agree with
the trial court.
The test for definiteness of the description of land in a deed is well set out in Blumberg v. Nathan, 190 Ga.
64, 65-66, 8 S.E.2d 274 (1940): "A description of land in a deed, in order to be valid, must identify the land or
must contain a key by the use of which the description may be applied by extrinsic evidence. Possibly this idea
of a 'key' has been overworked and it has certainly been frequently misunderstood. There need not be confusion
about this word and no confusion will result if the word is given its true and literal meaning.... [A]ny descriptive
words in a contract for the sale of land, which will lead unerringly to the land in question, constitute the key which
the law contemplates, but no amount of words in such a contract which fail to lead definitely to the land therein
will constitute a key. If such words, when aided by extrinsic evidence, fail to locate and identify a certain tract of
land, the description fails and the instrument is void."
The legal description of Lot 4 in the plaintiffs' deed is as follows: All of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land
situate, lying and being in the 1312 District, G.M., McIntosh County, Georgia, at Raccoon Bluff on Sapelo Island,
containing Twenty-One (21) Acres, more or less and being Lot (4) Four of the Raccoon Bluff Subdivision of
William Hillary. Said property being bounded Northerly by Lot 3, Easterly by Blackbeard Island River; Southerly
by Lot 5; and Westerly by the out line of Raccoon Bluff Tract. This being that same property conveyed to Ben
Brown by deed and plat from William Hillary dated July, 1 882 and recorded in Deed Book 'U' at Page 298 and
299, to which said deed and plat reference is hereby made for all intents and purposes."
The plaintiffs claim only one and one-half acres from this 21-acre conveyance and no key is furnished to the
location of that lot within the larger tract.
The plaintiffs here claim three acres of Lot 7, which is only a part of the original 35-acre lot. The three acres
were first conveyed from the larger lot in a deed from James Robinson to Anthony Handy in March 1907. The
legal description from the warranty deed from Jack Handy's heirs is as follows: "that certain tract of land in McIn-
tosh County on Sapolo Island, (3) acres, more or less, and being in the 1312 District, and bounded on the North
by Tom Handy and brothers, on the East by public Road, South by John Bailey and West by Sam Roberts."
In Glover v. Newsome, 132 Ga. 797(3), 65 S.E. 64 (1909), the rule is set out that "[w]here a parcel of land
conveyed is described as bounded on one side by the lands of a named person other than the grantor, it is
competent to show what were the lands of such person, for the purpose of applying the description and locating
- 112 -
the boundary. While title to real estate cannot be proved by a parol statement thereof, the description of this
particular boundary will be sufficient, if it be made to appear that the maker of the deed recognized such other
person as the owner and as claiming the land, and the boundary line of the adjacent tract is established by
competent extrinsic evidence."
The main issue in Glover is whether the metes and bounds description in the deed was valid when it did not
appear from the deed in what town, county or state the land was located or even where the deed was executed
or recorded. There is no indication whether the court considered the description in the deed to have been a
facially valid description or one which only provided a key to the exact identification of the property conveyed.
Generally, valid descriptions fall into two categories. The first category is those descriptions which provide
by words a means of identification of land without resort to information beyond the words contained in the
description. The second category is those descriptions which, while not sufficient to independently identify the
land, provide a key which will unlock the mystery to the location of the real estate conveyed. Whether a
description is independently valid or presents only a key and requires extraneous evidence for the identification
and location of land becomes important for burden of proof reasons.
We hold that an independently valid description amounts to prima facie evidence of the identification of the
land and will stand unless the party attacking the deed can overcome this evidence by extraneous evidence
showing that the words of the description fail in fact to describe a parcel of land. For instance, if a party attacking
a deed can show a recited boundary does not exist or that the point of beginning of a courses and distances
description does not exist, the deed falls unless it is saved by additional words in the description. The burden
under these circumstances rests upon the party attacking the deed. If, however, the description provides only a
key to the exact location of the land, the deed is admissible in evidence, but standing alone does not afford proof
of a good conveyance. The party asserting claim under such a deed must support the deed with extraneous
evidence of just what mystery the key unlocks.
In this case we face the first question of whether the metes and bounds description of the three acres is an
independently valid description or whether it simply presents a key. From early times we have given greater
weight to metes and bounds descriptions than to courses and distances descriptions. In fact, we have held,
"Courses and distances occupy the lowest, instead of the highest grade, in the scale of evidence, as to the
identification of land." Riley v. Griffin, 16 Ga. 141, 142 (1854). The fact that the boundaries given in a metes and
bounds description are in the form of adjoining lands owned by parties other than the grantor, rather than natural
or artificial monuments, does not invalidate the description, nor does it lower its grade from one which is inde-
pendently valid rather than one which only provides a key. Therefore, the burden of showing that the boundaries
recited do not exist rests upon the party attacking the deed. No such evidence was presented here and the trial
court was correct in finding the description valid.
Affirmed.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Who is disputing title to the land?

2. What type of description is involved?
3. What does the court hold about using another’s property line for a metes and bounds description?
4. From an ethical perspective, is it troublesome to see a state commissioner litigating with state employees
over title to property?
5. Is the description in the case adequate?
6. What standard will the court apply in determining whether a metes and bounds description is adequate?
2. Have the students read the River Road case below and respond to Chapter Problem #5:
RIVER ROAD ASSOCIATION v. SOUTH TEXAS SPORTS

720 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1986)
The San Antonio Independent School District (defendant) entered into a lease agreement with South Texas
Sports, Inc., for the lease of Alamo Stadium and other tracts of land nearby. The validity of the lease was
challenged by several homeowners' associations, including River Road (plaintiffs). The homeowners were
challenging the lease on administrative grounds, potential nuisance effects and the insufficiency of the lease
agreement itself. The trial court found for South Texas Sports and River Road appealed.
CADENA, Chief Justice
The only attempt at description is found in the statement, in Article I of the lease instrument, that District was
leasing "that certain tract of land located in Bexar County, Texas, together with all improvements located thereon,
113
such land and improvements being more particularly described and shown on the plot plan attached hereto as
Exhibit 'A'."
Exhibit "A" appears to be a map on which eight tracts of land are marked. Alamo Stadium is not shown as
one of the tracts being leased.
The problem with Exhibit "A" is that it contains nothing which even attempts to describe the location of the
land shown on the map or of the eight tracts of land marked. It does not indicate that the land is in the City of
San Antonio, and only the reference to Bexar County in Article I of the lease furnishes a basis for the conclusion
that the land is in Bexar County.
It is, of course, proper to attach to a deed or lease a map showing the property conveyed or leased, and
such map can be looked to in aid of a defective written description in the instrument. But a map can cure a
defective description only if the map contains enough descriptive information which, when considered in
connection with the attempted written description in the deed or lease, to make location of the land possible. In
this case the lease instrument recites that the land is in Bexar County. The map gives no clue as to the portion
of Bexar County in which the land is located. It identifies no streets, highways, streams or other landmarks
indicating, even in a general way, the location of the eight tracts of [sic] and marked on the map. The result is
that, considering the lease instrument and the map together, we can ascertain only that the leased premises are
in Bexar County.
Since the lease does not furnish, within itself or by reference to some other existing writing, the means or
data by which the leased land can be identified, the lease is invalid for lack of an adequate description.
The trial judge stated that location of the leased premises was easily ascertainable because the deed by
which the City of San Antonio conveyed the site of what is now Alamo Stadium to District in 1939 was in
evidence and contains a metes and bounds description of the land. The problem with this theory is that the
lease contains no reference to the 1939 conveyance. The same is true of the trial judge's remark that the deed
from City to District was on record where any person could see it. We do not accept the theory that instruments
not referred to in a lease are read into and become a part of the property description merely because they are
recorded. The learned trial judge cited no authority supporting the assumption that all recorded instruments are
read into a lease, even if the lease contains no reference to them. STS cites no such authority in its brief in this
Court.
Defendants contend that the map attached to the lease "affords sufficient clues or keys so that the land can
be identified with reasonable certainty." Their brief contains no effort to point out what those "clues or keys" are,
Since the eight marked tracts contain no identifying names or numbers which correspond to anything contained
in the lease instrument, we find no clues or keys. The absence of written or printed matter which supplies any
help as to the name or location of the city block, new city block, subdivision, survey, etc., or even the city, in
which the land shown on the map is located cannot constitute a sufficient "key or clue" to make possible the
identification or location of the land with reasonable certainty.
The description in the Alamo Stadium lease is even less informative than the description ruled insufficient in
Lubel v. Uptmore, 680 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984).
Reversed.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What property was at issue?

2. Why were the neighborhood associations challenging the lease agreement?
3. How was the property described in the lease?
4. What flaws does the court point to in the description?
5. Is the description valid?
- 114 -
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those
pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew
scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently
apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by
appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and
discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the
inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew
was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of
Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all
that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only
needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer
thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of
ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the
unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and
preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus;
and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening
the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the
whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of
the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their
salvation.
Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given
the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of
Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies
that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go
to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned.
Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the
eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even
conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish
invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and
in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks
of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors
in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled
miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.
Ethiopia.――The earliest testimony on this point by any ecclesiastical history, is that of
Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided the
heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was allotted Ethiopia.” This is
commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or the country directly south of Egypt. The other
Fathers of the fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same country; but it is
quite uncertain what region is designated by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the
Greeks to such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define the particular one meant,
without more information about the locality.
But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which
this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian
record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom,
could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee
has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a
literary and a holy fame,――a monument which insures him a wider,
more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest ♦achievements of
the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for
them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not Demosthenes nor
Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader to whom the
despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest
hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when
exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless
and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have
said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these
superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to
have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty
years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own
countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in
humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect,
“complete a monument more enduring than brass,――more lofty
than the pyramids,――outlasting all the storms of revolution and of
disaster,――all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such
was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the
least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he
commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should
have been achieved by it.
♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”
THOMAS, DIDYMUS.
The second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of
the former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,”
from which, therefore, one important circumstance may be safely
inferred about the birth of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond
this, antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances
previous to his admission into the apostolic fraternity.
Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more

satisfactory in respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A
very few brief but striking incidents, in which he was particularly
engaged, are specified by John alone, who seems to have been
disposed to supply, by his gospel, some characteristic account of
several of the apostles, who had been noticed only by name, in the
writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those in particular who receive
this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew, Philip, Nathanael,
Thomas, and John himself,――of all whom, as well as of Peter, are
thus learned some interesting matters, which, though apparently so
trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of some of the
leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus preserved
respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any
account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor do
any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these
points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his
early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,――a notion
which is found in some of the Fathers,――grounded, no doubt,
altogether on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is
paired with Matthew, as though there were some close connection
between them. This is only a conjecture, and one with even a more
insignificant basis than most trifling speculations of this sort, and
therefore deserving no regard whatever. Of the three incidents
commemorated by John, two at least, are such as to present
Thomas in a light by no means advantageous to his character as a
ready and zealous believer in Jesus; but on both these occasions he
is represented as expressing opinions which prove him to have been
very slow, not only in believing, but in comprehending spiritual truths.
The first incident is that mentioned by John in his account of the
death of Lazarus, where he describes the effect produced on the
disciples by the news of the decease of their friend, and by the
declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his intention to go
into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers to which he was
there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged at his open
declarations of his divine character and origin, were determined to
punish with death, one who advanced claims which they pronounced
absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so openly
expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire awhile
from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal effects of
such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly mission had
been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to the bloody
fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he had finished
the work which his Father gave him to do.
But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus

expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers,
into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only
begun. Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the
danger, which, by once retreating from it for a time, he had
acknowledged to be imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone;
and turning to his fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may
die with him.” The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble
resolution in Thomas, to share all the fortunes of him to whom he
had joined himself, and presents his character in a far more
favorable light than the other passages in which his conduct is
commemorated. While the rest were fearfully expostulating on the
peril of the journey, he boldly proposed to his companions to follow
unhesitatingly the footsteps of their Master, whithersoever he might
go,――thus evincing a spirit of far more exalted devotion to the
cause.
The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of the passage, but it is the
view which has seemed best supported by the whole tenor of the context, as may be
decided by a reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The evidence on both
views can not be better presented than in Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here
extracted entire.
“Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius, Poole, Hammond,
Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to Lazarus, and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and
die together with him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus was already
dead; and die like him they could not, because a violent death was the one in Thomas’s
contemplation. But these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice be
objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer, with many ancient and modern
interpreters, to refer the αὐτου to Jesus, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati and
Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most affectionate attachment to our Lord’s
person. But this is going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle course,
with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it should appear) Tittman. Thomas
could not dismiss the idea of the imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be
exposed, by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and some portion of ill
humor, (though with substantial attachment to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our
Master will expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary danger, let us
accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’ Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and
Forster, apud Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, vol. III.
p. 426, 427.)
In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at the

Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his
departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them,
he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house,
where were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to
bring them to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go
ye know, and the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all
these words of instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers
seems to have rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and
Thomas was probably only expressing the general doubt, when he
replied to Jesus, in much perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know
not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Jesus
replied, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the
Father but by me.” But equally vain was this new illustration of the
truth. The remark which Philip next made, begging that they might
have their curiosity gratified by a sight of the Father, shows how idly
they were all still dreaming of a worldly, tangible and visible kingdom,
and how uniformly they perverted all the plain declarations of Jesus,
to a correspondence with their own pre-conceived, deep-rooted
notions. Nor was this miserable error removed, till the descent of that
Spirit of Truth, which their long-suffering and ever watchful Lord
invoked, to teach their still darkened souls the things which they
would not now see, and to bring to their remembrance all which they
now so little heeded.
The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded

by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new
revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his
disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;――none would
really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes. Thomas
therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing from the
others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus had
actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute
unbelief,――protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly
deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence
but that of the most unquestionable character,――that of seeing and
touching those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all
possibility of mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After
eight days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this
occasion Thomas was with them. While they were sitting, as usual,
with doors closed for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same
sudden and mysterious manner as before, appeared all at once in
the midst, with his solemn salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at
once to the unbelieving disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the
first time fell on the body of his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas!
Put thy finger here, and see my hands; and put thy hand here, and
thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” The
stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted at the sight of these
mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies, and in a burst of
new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my God!” The
pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body of his
“Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death, return to
perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply of Jesus to
this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep reproach to
this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence whatever of
the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the sight of
every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas! because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who though
not seeing, yet believe.”
“Put thy finger here.”――This phrase seems to express the graphic force of the original,
much more justly than the common translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of
the very place where the wounds had been made, and brings to the reader’s mind the
attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great distinctness. The adverb “here,” refers to the print
of the nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these words, telling him to
put his finger into the wound.
Not seeing, yet believe.――This is the form of expression best justified by the
indefiniteness of the Greek aorists, whose very name implies this unlimitedness in respect
to time. The limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by no means
required by the original; but it is left so vague, that the action may be referred to the present
and the future also.
Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the least
account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be
uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the
contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that he
preached the gospel in
Parthia,――Media,――Persia,――Ethiopia,――and at last, India. A
great range of territories is thus spread out before the investigator,
but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are both few and
doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys into these
countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and all that is
now believed respecting these things, is derived from other, and
perhaps still more uncertain sources.
India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of

the third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this
apostle is named as the person through whom this evangelization
was effected; but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little
consideration, except from the circumstance, that from an early
period, to this day, there has existed in India, a large body of
Christians, who give themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s
Christians,” of whose antiquity proofs are found in the testimony,
both of very ancient and very modern travelers. They still retain
many traditions of the person whom they claim as their
founder,――of his place of landing,――the towns he visited,――the
churches he planted,――his places of residence and his retreats for
private devotion,――the very spot of his martyrdom, and his grave.
A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen centuries, can
not be received as very good evidence; and the more minute such
stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are in their
character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this, it may well
be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the highest
degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former parts of
this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the destruction
of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at Babylon,
within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more adventurous
might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward, to the mild
and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose character for
civilization and partial refinement was such as to present many
facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the gospel among
them. These views, in connection with the great amount of
respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole
outline of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and
even highly probable.
The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been quoted on this point, is that
of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned
above; (page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations of Michaelis and
others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix was the country there intended by that
name. The first distinct mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be
found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 1,) as testifying, that
when the apostles separated to go into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was
assigned to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common tradition, for
the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in
Media and Persia. In another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he is
followed by most of the later writers,――Ambrose, Nicephorus, Baronius, Natalis, &c.
Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles) says that Thomas preached the gospel in
Ethiopia. As the geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat
confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent with each other. Media and
Persia were both in the Parthian Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south,
were, by the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just ♦ as all the northern
unknown regions were generally called Scythia.
♦ removed duplicate “as”
Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all these accounts by saying, that
Thomas preached the gospel to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and
the other neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He quotes as his
authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers, Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory
Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose, (370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the
imperfect work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his travels, the three
Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having baptized them, associated them with him, in
his apostolic labors. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and others,
declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius (390,) testifies that Thomas died at
Calamina, in India. This Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a
tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this effect, the Portuguese, when they
set up their dominion in India, gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported
by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a tradition current among the
people of the place, that Thomas was there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance.
(Natalis Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)
A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the statements of Dr. Claudius
Buchanan, who, in modern times, has traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to,
and has given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in his “Christian
researches in India.”
On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an

absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in
distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to
leave the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course
of ages, in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In
obedience to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations
unknown to Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine
love,――solitary, and unsupported, save by the presence of Him,
who had promised to “be with him always, even to the end of the
world.”
JAMES, THE LITTLE;
THE SON OF ALPHEUS.
his name.
It will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most

important inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these
apostolic biographies, is about the name and personal identification
of the individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with
peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that may
not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have been
accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and
individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at
the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the
last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to
have been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time
when family names were first adopted. The former part of his name,
with equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains
fixed from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any
change takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done
in such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any
occasion for confusion in respect to the individual, among those
concerned with him. But no such decisive limitation of names to
persons, prevailed among even the most refined nations of the
apostolic age. The name given to a child at birth, indeed, was very
uniformly retained through life; but as to the other parts of his
appellation, it was taken, according to circumstances, chance or
caprice, from the common name of his father,――from some
personal peculiarity,――from his business,――from his general
character,――or from some particular incident in his life. The name
thus acquired, to distinguish him ♦ from others bearing his former
name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and
sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the
same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or
separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those
acquainted with the individual so variously named, and
contemporary with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of
words; and when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done
with the perfect assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no
difficulty in respect to his personal identity, however he might he
mentioned. But in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all
these individual distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties
necessarily arise on these points,――difficulties which, after tasking
historical and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to
settle the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty.
Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this
confusion of names throws great doubt over many important
questions. Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly
owing to other causes. Their names were originally given to them, in
the peculiar language of Palestine; and in the extension of their
labors and fame, to people of different languages, of a very opposite
character, their names were forced to undergo new distortions, by
being variously translated, or changed in termination; and many of
the original Hebrew sounds, in consequence of being altogether
unpronounceable by Greeks and Romans, were variously
exchanged for softer and smoother ones, which, in their dissimilar
forms, would lose almost all perceptible traces of identity with each
other, or with the original word.
♦ replace word omitted from text “from”
These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as

in regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular
biography. Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee,
he was of course necessarily designated by some additional title, to
distinguish him from the other great apostle James. This title was not
always the same, nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On
all the apostolic lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of
his father, as is the first James. As the person first mentioned by this
name is called James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called
James, the son of Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the
apostles by Matthew, Mark or Luke, any reference to another
distinctive appellation of this James. But in one passage of Mark’s
account of the crucifixion, it is mentioned, that among the women
present, was Mary the mother of James the Little, and of Joses. In
what sense this word little is applied,――whether of age, size, or
dignity,――it is utterly impossible to ascertain at this day; for the
original word is known to have been applied to persons, in every one
of these senses, even in the New Testament. But, however this may
be, a serious question arises, whether this James the Little was
actually the same person as the James, called, on the apostolic lists,
the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding passage in John’s gospel,
this same Mary is called Mary the wife of Clopas; and by Matthew
and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the brother of Joses,
Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by Luke, both in his
gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also called “the
brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the same apostle
calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning of the epistle to
the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception at Jerusalem, calls
him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by Matthew and Mark, he,
with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is also called the brother
of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite and irreconcilable
statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it is believed, be so
answered, as to attribute to the subject of this article every one of the
circumstances connected with James, in these different stories.
James, the Little.――This adjective is here applied to him in the positive degree,
because it is so in the original Greek, [Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression
too, is in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative form, “James, the
Less,” seems to have originated in the Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well
enough in that language; but in English, there is no reason why the original word should not
be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek original of Mark, calls him “James, the Little,”
which implies simply, that he was a little man; whether little in size, or age, or dignity, every
one is left to guess for himself;――but it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such
nicknames, in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was thus named to
distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who was probably taller. The term thus applied by
Mark, would be understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement to his
mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of a smaller dignity, is so slighting to
the character of James, who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both
Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion and intellectual
worth,――that it must have struck all who heard it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to
his true eminence. His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon after the
ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in the accounts of his death, make it
very improbable that he was younger than the other James.
First: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as James
the son of Clopas? The main argument for the identification of these
names, rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original
Hebrew word which represents them both, and which, according to
the fancy of a writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the
letters of Alpheus or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully
appreciated only by those who are familiar with the power of the
letters of the oriental languages, and know the variety of modes in
which they are frequently given in the Greek, and other European
languages. The convertibility of certain harsh sounds of the dialects
of southwestern Asia, into either hard consonants, or smooth vowel
utterances, is sufficiently well-known to Biblical scholars, to make the
change here supposed appear perfectly probable and natural to
them. It will be observed by common readers, that all the consonants
in the two words are exactly the same, except that Clopas has a
hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus has the letter P
aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these differences can,
by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown to be only the
results of the different modes of expressing the same Hebrew letters;
and the words thus expressed may, by the established rules of
etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two names,
then, Alpheus and Clopas, may be safely assigned to the same
person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the
Little, and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called
“James the son of Alpheus.”
Clopas and Alpheus.――It should be noticed, that in the common translation of the New
Testament, the former of these two words is very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas,
whereas the original (John xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (Clopas.) This is a totally different
name from Cleopas, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek in its origin, and
abridged from Cleopater, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as Antipas from Antipater, and many other
similar instances, in which the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and
Roman words, to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But Clopas, being very differently
spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and the circumstances which connect
it with the name Alpheus, suggesting that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs
the inquirer to the original form of that word. The Hebrew ‫( חלפא‬hhalpha) may be taken as
the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression of the original, as the
different writers might choose for its fair representation. The first letter in the word, ‫ח‬,
(hhaith,) has in Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and the other a
deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by two different letters, but in
Hebrew, a single character is used to designate both; consequently the names which
contain this letter, may be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different
letters, according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which contained it,
was sounded differently, by different persons, under different circumstances, varying its
pronunciation with the times and the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently
expressed in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those Old
Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend the possibility of such
a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech, (Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other
changes of the same sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the
same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same strongly aspirated
H, that begins the word in question,――and the same too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed
into the strong Greek Ch; while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed,
in Anna. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to common readers,
the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning of Alpheus and Clopas. The other
changes of vowels are of no account, since in the oriental languages particularly, these are
not fixed parts of the word, but mere modes of uttering the consonants, and vary throughout
the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts of speech undergo. These
therefore, are not considered radical or essential parts of the word, and are never taken into
consideration in tracing a word from one language to another,――the consonants being the
fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the aspirate Ph, to the
smooth mute P, is also so very common in the oriental languages, and even in the Greek,
that it need not be regarded in identifying the word.
Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect affinities of the two words, and
adding to these the great body of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances
that show or suggest the identity of persons,――and noticing moreover, the circumstance,
that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,――and
that John, who alone uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,――it seems very
reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist means the same person as the
former.
Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as

“James, the brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this
question seems to be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of
Clopas is named as the mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere,
James and Joses, and Juda and Simon, are called the brothers of
Jesus. It should be understood that the word “brother” is used in the
scriptures often, to imply a relationship much less close than that of
the children of the same father and mother. “Cousins” are called
“brothers” in more cases than one, and the oriental mode of
maintaining family relationship closely through several generations,
made it very common to consider those who were the children of
brothers, as being themselves brothers; and to those familiar with
this extension of the term, it would not necessarily imply anything
more. In the case alluded to, all those to whom the narratives and
other statements containing the expression, “James the brother of
our Lord,” were first addressed, being well acquainted with the
precise nature of this relationship, would find no difficulty whatever in
such a use of words. The nature of his relationship to Jesus seems
to have been that of cousin, whether by the father’s side or mother’s,
is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the wife of Clopas is called
the sister of the mother of Jesus; but it will seem reasonable enough
to suppose,――since two sisters, daughters of the same parents,
could hardly bear the same name,――that Mary the mother of
James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of Jesus,
either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or, in
perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have
been only a cousin or some such relation.
The third question which has been originated from these various
statements,――whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author
of the epistle, was an apostle,――must, of course, be answered in
the affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.
All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed by Michaelis, in his
Introduction to the epistle of James. He states five different suppositions which have been
advanced respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in the New
Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the sons of Joseph, by a former wife.
2. That they were the sons of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the
sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged to raise up children
according to the laws of Moses. 4. That this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws
required him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers of Christ, not in the
strict sense of the word, but in a more lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in
general, agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language. (Genesis xiv. 16: xiii.
8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13: Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion
which has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has been very generally
received since his time; though the first of the five was supported by the most ancient of the
Fathers. Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the fifth, between which he
does not decide; mentioning, however, that though he had been early taught to respect the
latter, as the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.
The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus,

is by John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to
Jerusalem, at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the
brethren of Jesus did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering
tone, urged him to go up to the feast, and display himself, that the
disciples who had formerly there followed him, might have an
opportunity to confirm their faith by the sight of some new miracle
done by him. Speaking to him in a very decidedly commanding tone,
they said, “Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also
may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that does
anything in secret, while he himself seeks to be widely known; if thou
do these things, show thyself to the world.” The whole tenor of this
speech shows a spirit certainly very far from a just appreciation of
the character of their divine brother; and the base, sordid motives,
which they impute to him as ruling principles of action, were little less
than insults to the pure, high spirit, which lifted him so far above their
comprehension. The reply which Jesus made to their taunting
address, contained a decided rebuke of their presumption in thus
attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come, but yours is always
ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates, because I testify
of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this feast; but I am not going
yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They might always go where
mere inclination directed them, nor was there any occasion to refer
to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was connected with his
movements, to which he directed every action. In his great work, he
had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked, and his
movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time for
exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would
unhesitatingly meet the results.
By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first

beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so
little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny of him
with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and an
intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and
astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to
place with his disciples,――neglecting the business to which he had
been educated, and deserting his family friends,――preaching to
vast throngs of wondering people, and performing strange works of
kindness to those who seemed to have no sort of claim on his
attention. Distressed at these strange actions, they could form no
conclusion about his conduct that seemed so reasonable and
charitable, as that he was beside himself, and needed to be
confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to himself and others,
by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct. “And they
came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside himself.’”
With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family relations
had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if possible,
and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account of the
throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were
therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his
discourse and come out to them, because they wanted to see him.
The request was therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the
crowd, till at last those who sat next to Jesus communicated the
message to him,――“Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the
nature of the business on which their ill-discerning regard had
brought them thither, only suspended the train of his discourse to
make such a remark as would impress all with the just idea of the
value which he set upon earthly affections, which were liable to
operate as hindrances to him in the great work to which he had been
devoted; and to convince them how much higher and stronger was
the place in his affections held by those who had joined themselves
to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God, and to do
with him the will of his Father in heaven,――in the striking language
of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then looking
with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat near
him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and
mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage,
that he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at
that time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however
is any where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph
was now dead.
This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus,

may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the
supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the
apostles. But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly
exceeded many that were made by his most select followers, even to
the time of his ascension. All the apostles may be considered to
have been in a great measure unbelievers, until the descent of the
Holy Spirit,――for until that time, on no occasion did one of them
manifest a true faith in the words of Jesus. Times almost without
number, did he declare to them that he should rise from the dead;
but notwithstanding this assertion was so often made to them in the
most distinct and solemn manner, not one of them put the slightest
confidence in his words, or believed that he would ever appear to
them again after his crucifixion. Not even the story of his
resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by the women and
others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when the risen
Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their
presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not
those who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at
this early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest
of those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to
oppose the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the
words of John, that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a
triumphant retort may be found in the fact, that neither did his
apostles believe in him.
There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those

who were apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses,
who is nowhere mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been
others still, whose names are not given; for, in the account given, in
the first chapter of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven
apostles, there were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the
mother of Jesus, and his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may
have had several other cousins, who followed his fortunes, though
they were not considered by him, qualified to rank among his chosen
apostles. But a very prominent objection to the notion that they were
the children of his mother, with whom they are mentioned in such
close connection,――is, that when Jesus was on the cross, he
commended her to the care of John, his beloved disciple, as though
she were destitute of any immediate natural protector; and certainly,
if she had at that time several sons living, who were full-grown, she
could not have needed to be intrusted thus to the kindness of one
who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but would, of course,
have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support, so long as
her sons could have worked for her. These also may have been
those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him
beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of
those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his
brethren,――James, Juda, Joses and Simon.
Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the

gospels take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the
Acts of the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is
mentioned with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the
apostolic writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a
person of high standing and great importance, and his opinions are
given in such a manner as to convey the impression that they had
great weight in the regulation of the apostolic doings. This is
particularly evident in the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles
where his words are given, which is in the account of the
consultation at Jerusalem about the great question of communion
between the circumcised and uncircumcised. On this occasion,
James is mentioned in such a way as to make it evident that he was
considered the most prominent among those who were zealous for
the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been by all such,

Real Estate Law 11Th Edition Jennings Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Real Estate Law 11Th Edition Jennings Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Real Estate Law 11th Edition Jennings

DESCRIBING LAND INTERESTS

Burby, Real Property, Section 887.

I. Methods of Describing Land Interests

2. Important to use stable beginning point to insure endurance of description

CASE BRIEF: Gaut v. Daniel

ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS:

Emphasize PRACTICAL TIP on the dangers of relying on old descriptions.

ANSWER TO CONSIDER (7.1):

2. Map is recorded in appropriate land office where records are kept

3. Map contains the following

ANSWER TO CONSIDER (7.2):

1. Done in 1785 to simplify subdivision of huge parcels

a. Prime or principal meridians

i. Run north to south

i. Run east to west

a. Placed to compensate for curving of the earth's surface

d. East/west measurements are ranges, and north/south measurements are townships

ANSWER TO CONSIDER (7.3):

G R4W R3W R2W R1W P R1E

M R4W R3W R2W R1W M R1E

BASELINE R1W R1E

A = W-1/2 or NE-1/4 of NW-1/4 D = N-1/2 of the SW-1/4

a. Each called a section

PRACTICAL TIP: Proof deeds, right down to “ofs” and “froms”.

ANSWER TO CONSIDER (7.4):

A. Description by Popular Name

1. May be insufficient where landowner owns more than one piece

2. May be insufficient where the name is issued for another tract

CASE BRIEF: 303, LLC v. Born

ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS:

B. Description by Street Number

1. Numbers and streets can change

CASE BRIEF: Hardey v. Shell

ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS

C. General Conveyances − Such as "All My Real Estate" are Inadequate

1. Metes and bounds tied to movable or nonpermanent object

2. Create boundary problems and are insufficient

B. If Two Descriptions are Available – Unambiguous One Used

C. Can Turn to Extrinsic Evidence to Clarify Ambiguities

3. Latent ambiguity – typing error – extrinsic evidence permitted

4. Patent ambiguity – parties never agreed – no extrinsic evidence is permissible

ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS:

ANSWERS TO CHAPTER PROBLEMS:

1. a. Use charts in text to point out locations.

c. Use charts in text.

200' 10' 10'

1. Who is disputing title to the land?

RIVER ROAD ASSOCIATION v. SOUTH TEXAS SPORTS

CADENA, Chief Justice

1. What property was at issue?

Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more

But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus

In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at the

The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded

India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of

♦ removed duplicate “as”

On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an

It will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most

♦ replace word omitted from text “from”

These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as

Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as