What this court said in similar circumstances in Christen v. Ruppe, 131 Conn. 149, 152, 38 A.2d 439, is particularly relevant to our decision on this appeal: "There was therefore a latent ambiguity in the description of the line in question. Doolittle v. Blakesley, 4 Day 265, 271; Nichols v. Turney, 15 Conn. 101, 113; Atkinson v. Cummins, 9 How. (50 U.S.) 479, 486, 13 L.Ed. 223; Stone v. Clark, 1 Metc. (42 Mass.) 378, 381; note, 68 A.L.R. 4, 5; and see Bielby v. Blinn, 112 Conn. 1, 4, 151 A. 357. Accordingly, the question of what the parties intended as the easterly line was one of fact for the trial court and we cannot disturb its finding, based as it is upon evidence of the surrounding circumstances and the situation of the property, which legally supports it. Luce v. Niantic Menhaden Oil Guano Co., 86 Conn. 147, 150, 84 A. 521; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921; Ferrigno v. Odell, 113 Conn. 420, 426, 155 A. 639."

In such a case, there is no room for construction. The inquiry is not the intent of the parties but the intent which is expressed in the deed. Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503, 511, 280 A.2d 877; Faiola v. Faiola, 156 Conn. 12, 17, 238 A.2d 405; Katsoff v. Lucertini, 141 Conn. 74, 77, 103 A.2d 812; Patzloff v. Kasperovich, 116 Conn. 440, 441-42, 165 A. 349; Botsford v. Wallace, 69 Conn. 263, 271, 37 A. 902. Where the deed is ambiguous, however, the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, supra; Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 319, 64 A.2d 176; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921; Raymond v. Nash, 57 Conn. 447, 452, 18 A. 714. The two deeds in this case are certain on their faces. There is no indefiniteness or contradiction in the description; no patent ambiguity appears.

The court's memorandum of decision indicates that this testimony by the plaintiff was "utterly unconvincing" and, on the basis of contradictory evidence, it concluded that the plaintiff, Armando and Guido decided to deed the land to their father and that, despite the peculiar ambiguities in the deed, they conveyed a fee to him. "Where a deed is ambiguous the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127A. 921." Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 319, 64 A.2d 176. "In case of doubt, the grant will be taken most strongly against the grantor.

None of the deeds described in the finding or the abstract of title made a part thereof tie the measurements of the frontage of the defendant's lot on Howard Avenue to any particular physical object so that it can be definitely located. It and the lot of the plaintiff are bounded by the property of others. It is true, as claimed by the plaintiff, that adjacent land may be a monument, but this cannot assist in fixing a boundary when the boundary of the adjacent land is itself not fixed. Patzloff v. Kasperovich, 116 Conn. 440, 442, 165 A. 349. The court found that this was the situation, and it recited in the finding additional facts which justified its conclusion that the line was as claimed by the defendant. Where a deed is ambiguous the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921. In ascertaining that intention it was proper for the trial court to consider the surrounding circumstances.

Patzloff v. Kasperovich, 116 Conn. 440, 442, 165 A. 349. There was therefore a latent ambiguity in the description of the line in question. Doolittle v. Blakesley, 4 Day 265, 271; Nichols v. Turney, 15 Conn. 101, 113; Atkinson v. Cummins, 9 How. (50 U.S.) 479, 486, 13 L.Ed. 223; Stone v. Clark, 1 Metc. (42 Mass.) 378, 381; note, 68 A.L.R. 4, 5; and see Bielby v. Blynn, 112 Conn. 1, 4, 151 A. 357. Accordingly, the question of what the parties intended as the easterly line was one of fact for the trial court and we cannot disturb its finding, based as it is upon evidence of the surrounding circumstances and the situation of the property, which legally supports it. Luce v. Niantic Menhaden Oil Guano Co., 86 Conn. 147, 150, 84 A. 521; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921; Ferrigno v. Odell, 113 Conn. 420, 426, 155 A. 639.

The opinions of this court contain repeated assertions that a finding will not be corrected unless the appellant complies with the law relating thereto. Elkin v. McGeorge, 103 Conn. 486, 487, 489, 130 A. 898; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 127 A. 921; Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co., 102 Conn. 529, 129 A. 527; State v. Kelly, 100 Conn. 505, 506, 507, 508, 124 A. 37. "It ought not to be necessary in numerous cases for this court to call attention of counsel to this rule with wearisome iteration, and to emphasize the fact that it will be strictly adhered to." West v. Lewis Oyster Co., 99 Conn. 55, 62, 121 A. 462.

" Id., § 11.1. This principle appears to be nothing more than a restatement of the well established rule that a party cannot convey that which he no longer possesses. Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921 (1925). In cases where there are ambiguities about what was intended to be conveyed to the holder of the oldest deed, that rule cannot resolve the dispute.

In such a case, there is no room for construction. The inquiry is not the intent of the parties but the intent which is expressed in the deed. Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503, 511, 280 A.2d 877; Faiola v. Faiola, 156 Conn. 12, 17, 238 A.2d 405; Katsoff v. Lucertini, 141 Conn. 74, 77, 103 A.2d 812; Patzloff v. Kasperovich, 116 Conn. 440, 441-42, 165 A. 349; Botsford v. Wallace, 69 Conn. 263, 271, 37 A. 902. Where the deed is ambiguous, however, the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, supra; Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 319, 64 A.2d 176; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921; Raymond v. Nash, 57 Conn. 447, 452, 18 A. 714." F. AK., Inc. v. Sleeper, 161 Conn. 505, 510, 289 A.2d 905 (1971); see Apostles of the Sacred Heart v. Curott, 187 Conn. 591, 595, 448 A.2d 157 (1982); Faiola v. Faiola, supra, 18.

Where the deed is ambiguous, however the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Lake Garda Improvement Ass’n. v. Battistoni, supra; Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 319, 64 A.2d 176 [1949]; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127A 127 A. 921 921 [1925]; Raymond v. Nash, 57 Conn. 447, 452, 18 A. 714 [1889]." F.&A.K, Inc. v. Sleeper, 161 Conn. 505, 510, 289 A.2d 905 (1971); see Apostles of the Sacred Heart v. Curott, 187 Conn. 591, 595, 448 A.2d 157 (1982); Faiola v. Faiola, supra, at 18, 238 A.2d 405.

Where the deed is ambiguous, however, the intention of the parties is a decisive question of fact. Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, supra; Staff v. Hawkins, 135 Conn. 316, 319, 64 A.2d 176 [1949]; Gioia v. Annunziata, 102 Conn. 52, 56, 127 A. 921 [1925]; Raymond v. Nash, 57 Conn. 447, 452, 18 A. 714 [1889]." F. A.K., Inc. v. Sleeper, 161 Conn. 505, 510, 289 A.2d 905 (1971); see Apostles of the Sacred Heart v. Curott, 187 Conn. 591, 595, 448 A.2d 157 (1982); Faiola v. Faiola, supra, 18.