554 DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND.

estate or interest in lands, esceedingthe term of three years, should
be assigned or granted unless by deed or note in writing; and as
the Acts of Assembly required all conveyances of any estate, for
above seven years, in lands to be in writing and recorded. 1715,
ch. 47. It seems to have been always considered and held, that,
although the title to land, as in case of a levy of the fieri facias
upon personalty, passed by the sale made by the sheriff; yet some
written evidence of the sale was necessary, and that such evidence
should be recorded. Hence although no inquisition Avas required,
as under the English statute giving the elegit; yet, it seems to
have been always understood, that, in all cases, where real estate
was levied upon and sold, it was necessary, as an evidence of the
title which had been so passed by the sale, that the fieri facias
should be returned, that the sheriff should specify with sufficient
certainty in his return the real estate which he had so sold, and
that the return so made by him should be recorded. Bull v. Shere-
dine, 1 H. & J. 410; Boring v. Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 223; Barney v.
Patterson, 6 H. & J. 204.

Upon these general principles it has been laid down, that a re-
turn of a sale of lands under a fieri facias should regularly, for
* the security of purchasers, describe the premises with pre-
591 cision; but it is enough if the description be such as that
the property sold may be clearly identified, or sufficiently known
or ascertained. It is not necessary , that it should be specified with
technical minuteness. Thus if the land be described as, "one
tract of land called Habitation Rock, containing 360 acres more
or less, situate in North Hundred, Baltimore County;" Boring v.
Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 223; or as " all that part of the tract of land
called Charles and Benjamin, which was devised to E. D. B. by
his father R. B.;" Berry v. Griffith, 2 H. & G. 337; or by a par-
ticular name, as " a tract of land called Borough Hall, containing
the supposed quantity of 130 acres of land more or less;" Thomas"
Lessee \. Turret/, 1 H. & G. 435; it is sufficient. Because the
sheriff, not having the title deeds within his reach, cannot be pre-
sumed to have it in his power to give a more particular descrip-
tion of the land he sells. Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J. 204; Scott
v. Bruce, 2 H. & G. 262; Berry v. Griffith, 2 H. & G. 337: Under-
bill v. Devereux, 2 Saund, 68,/. But where it was designated by
names common to all similar property, as thus: " to dwelling-house,
grist-mill, saw-mill and fulling-mill and all other buildings belonging
thereunto, with one hundred acres of land joining the said prop-
erty," the return was held to be defective for want of a specifica-
tion; Williamson v. Perkins, 1 H. & J. 449; McElderry v. Smith, 2
H. & J. 72; Fitzhugh v. Hellen, 3 H. & J. 206; and so too where
the return described the land as " part of Resurrection Manor,
containing 251 acres more or less;" it was held to be void for un-
certainty; because there was nothing by which it could be ascer-