DUVALL v. WATERS. §9J

the security of purchasers, describe the premises with precision;
but it is enough if the description be such as that the property sold
may be clearly identified, or sufficiently known and ascertained. It
is not necessary, that it should be specified with technical minute-
ness. 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;"(c) or as "all that part of the
tract of land called Charles & Benjamin, which was devised to E,
D. B. by his father JR. B.;"(d) or by a particular name, as aa tract
of land called Borough Hall, containing the supposed quantity of
130 acres of land more or less,"(e) 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 description
of the land he sells.(f) 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 property,"
the return was held to be defective for want of a specification :(g)
and so too where the return described the land as "part of Resur-
rection Manor, containing 251 acres more or less;" it was held to
be void for uncertainty; because there was nothing by which it
could be ascertained whether that part was to be located on the
north, south, east, or west, of the whole tract. But in this latter
it was admitted, that the return would have been good if it had
designated a whole tract by any distinct name or description, such
as a tract of land called part of a tract; and not as a tract of land
being part of a tract called Resurrection Manor, (h)

According to these decisions and principles the return under
consideration must be deemed sufficient when taken either alto-
gether or in its several parts. The property sold is described as
consisting of several parcels of land. First, of "one tract of land
called the Pastures Enlarged." About this there can be no doubt.
Secondly, of "one tract of land called Osbourne's lot and part of

(c) Boring v. Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 223.—(rf) Berry v. Griffith, 2 H. & G. 387.
(e) Thomas's Lessee v. Turvey, 1 H. & G. 435.—(f) Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. &
J. 204; Scott v. Bruce, 2 H. & G. 262; Berry v. Griffith, 2 H. & G. 337; Underbill
v. Devereux, 2 Saund, 68 f.—(gr) Williamson v. Perkins, 1 H. & J. 449; McElderry
v. Smith, 2 H. & J. 72; Fitzhugh v. Hellen, 3 H. & J. 206.—(h) Fenwick v. Floyd,
1 H. & G. 172; Purl's Lessee v.'Duvall, 5 H. & J. 69; Waters v. Duvall, 6
G. & J. 76.