Opinion
11-15-1897
PENROSE v. STEELMAN et al.
D. J. Pancoast, for complainant. Mark R. Sooy, for defendants.
Bill by Richard A. P. Penrose against John D. Steelman and others to quiet title. Decree for complainant.
D. J. Pancoast, for complainant.
Mark R. Sooy, for defendants.
REED, V. C. The complainant holds whatever title John, James, and Steelman Leeds got from Andrew Leeds in the locus in quo by deeds made to them bearing date March 31, 1849. Andrew Leeds, at the date of this conveyance, was admittedly the owner of a tract of land now within the limits of Atlantic City, consisting of one parcel known as the 347-acre tract, and another parcel to the north of the north line of the 347-acre tract, if the north line be protracted east and west to Beach thoroughfare. The second tract was bounded generally on the east and west by Beaeh thoroughfare, and on the north by Clan thoroughfare. The three deeds conveyed to each of the three sons of Andrew Leeds, viz. John, James, and Steelman Leeds, a specifically described part of the 347-acre tract. They conveyed, also, in addition to these specifically defined parcels, an undivided third part of a tract, which is described in each of the deeds as follows: "Being an undivided third part of all the salt marsh belonging to the said party of the first part, situate, lying, and being north of the fourth line of the afore said three hundred and forty-seven acres, and extending to the thoroughfare." The contention of the defendants is that this description includes only the land lying between the two lines, starting, respectively, from the east and west ends of the fourth line of the 347-acre tract, and running directly north to Clan thoroughfare, or as near Clan thoroughfare as the grantor's title would carry it; for it appears that the most westerly of the northerly drawn line would not reach the thoroughfare before the grantor's title stops. Andrew Leeds devised all his property to his widow, Ellen Leeds. It is admitted that if the only portion of the marsh owned by Andrew Leeds, in 1849, which passed to his three sons, was the strip included within the two lines drawn to the north from the east and west ends of the fourth line of the 347-acre tract, then the locus in quo passed by the will of Andrew Leeds to Ellen Leeds, and from her to the defendants. It is not denied that the complainant was at the time of the commencement of this suit in possession of the locus in quo; and it is proved to my satisfaction that the defendants claim title to it, but have exerted no possessory acts upon it which would confer upon the complainant the right to test his title by an action in ejectment. This condition of affairs gives to this court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present suit. The question, therefore, is limited to one of location under the descriptive portions of the three deeds mentioned. The precise question presented in this case was decided in an action brought in the supreme court, and tried at the Atlantic circuit. The plaintiffs in that action were the defendants in this suit, and the defendants in that suit were the grantees of the complainant in this. The subject-matter of the action was to try the question of title depending upon the construction to be given to the descriptions in the three deeds from Andrew Leeds to his three sons, the description of which has been already set out. In that action the description in these deeds was held by Mr. Justice Ludlow to include all the land owned by Andrew Leeds, not only that portion of it lying directly north of the fourth line of the 347-acre tract, but all the land included by expanding the description east and west until it strikes Beach thoroughfare, and extending in a northerly direction until it strikes Clan thoroughfare. Upon writ of error to the court of errors this view of Justice Ludlow has been recently affirmed. Steelman v. Sewerage Co., 38 Atl. 742. The effect of that decision is a precedent directly in point, and must control this court in construing the same deeds in this suit. The effect of such construction is to confer upon the complainant the right in the locus in quo which John, James, and Steelman Leeds got from Andrew Leeds, their title including the land in question. There must be a decree for the complainant.