
    Wiley Morgan et al. v. Jacob Schwartz.
    1. Deed. Description. Patent ambiguity.
    
    The description in a deed “ S. W. 3?. P. in S. P. Spanish claim Sec. 30, T. 1 R. 3 W. 261.25 acres,” is incurably void, even when written in a declaration as “ the southwest part, part in south part, Spanish claim, Sec. 30. Township 1, Range 3, west.”
    2. Description. Dist of lands sold to the state ; void description.
    
    Likewise the description, in a list of lands sold to the state, as “ Part in south part Spanish claim, 509.28 acres, Sec- 30, T. 1, R. 3 west,” presents a patent ambiguity, and is void.
    From the circuit court of Wilkinson county.
    Hon. Ralph North, Judge.
    Ejectment by appellee against appellants.
    The land in controversy is described in the declaration as “ The southwest part, part in south part Spanish claim, Sec. 30, Township 1, Range 3 west, containing 261.25 acres.” The plaintiff introduced the list of land sold to the state in 1876 for the taxes of 1875, and the state’s deed to him in 1888. . The description of the land in said list is as follows : “ Part in south part Spanish claim 509.28 acres, Sec. 30. T. 1 R. 3 west.” The description on the deed is “ S. W. P. P. in S. P. Spanish claim, Sec. 30. T. 1 R. 3 W. 261.25 acres.” Both the list and the deed were introduced over the objection of appellants. The opinion of the court is confined to the foregoing descriptions.
    
      I). O. Bramlelt, for appellants.
    1. The description in the list of lands sold to the state is void for uncertainty. Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596. Our courts have been liberal in admitting extrinsic evidence to aid descriptions, but no case has gone to the extent of upholding a description such as this. MeOready v. Lansdale, 58 Miss. 877; Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Miss. 1049.
    2. The deed in this respect is worse, if possible, than the land list. It is void to the extent that renders it too patent for argument or illustration.
    
      T. V. Noland, for appellee.
    
      There is no uncertainty in the description in the land list. Enochs v. Miller, 60 Miss. 19 ; Qoodbar v. Dunn, 61 Miss. 618. The same authorities dispose of the objection to the state deed because of uncertainty in the description.
   Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The evidence of the plaintiff should have been excluded because of the uncertainty in the description of the land.

With an earnest desire to uphold every instrument as far as may be consistent with law we are unable to affirm that “ S. W. P. P. in S. P. Spanish claim, Sec. 30, T. 1, R. 3, W. 261.25 acres,” even when written as in plaintiff’s declaration, “the southwest part, part in south part Spanish claim, Section 30, Township 1, Range 3, west,” conveys any definite idea of any particular land or furnishes any clue by which one could find the way to it, if guided by this description. The description in the list of lands sold to the state as Part in south part Spanish claim 509.28 acres, Sec. 30, T. 1, R. 3, west ” without more is incurably void.

Reversed and remanded.  