"ملف ٥/٢ VI المنطقة المُحايدة في الكويت" [و‎‎١‎٦‎٥] (٧٠٢/٣٢٩)

It nay be useful to'survey some English
cases illustrating the rule, referred to above on
p, lli to the effect "when a nap is attached for
the purpose of a general identification of parcels
adequately and sufficiently described in the
contract the latter will prevail",
'There a plan is attached to a Conveyance
as part of the parcels clause its effect varies accord
ing to the expression employed to annex it, A series of
cases illustrate the proposition that where either the
special circumstances of the case or the loose degree
of annexation of the plan so permit, the Court will
not hesitate, in cases of discrepancy, to ignore and
jettison the plan,
Taylor v. Ashton (181*0) 1 Scott (N.S.) £?6
is a case very much in point. This was an action
of trover for lead ore. The plaintiffs maintained that
the defendants wrongfully extracted lead ore from a spot
to which the plaintiffs claimed rights. The plaintiffs
held under a'lease which demised to them all mines and
minerals "in, upon or under all or any part of the
messuages or tenements fields, closes, or parcels of land
described and set forth in the map thereunto annexed;
and also in, upon, or under all or any part of that
large tract of land called Mold Mountain; all which
premises are situate &c and are bounded &c and all
which are particularly described, delineated, and
Distinguished in the map or plan thereof annexed to
these presents, and vdiich by agreement of all the sabd
several parties thereto was meant and intended to be
taken as part of that indenture," It was held that
the words of the demise were not to be controlled or'
restrained by the map, but might receive full effect,
and be held to include a particular spot the boundary
of which could not be traced with strict accuracy
upon the map, by reason of the smallness of the scale
upon which it was drawn,
' In Willis v. "Jatney (1881) £l L.J. (N.S,)
Ch,l8l, the question was whether a certain yard had
passed to the plaintiff. The words in the convey
ance were "and all Yards thereto belonging and
therewith occupied and enjoyed delineated on the
plan and therein coloured", etc, A yard which had
been enjoyed with the messuages was delineated on
the plan, but not coloured. It was held, by Fry, J,,
that the yard passed by description in the deed.
Again, in Horne v, Struben (1902) A.C.
hZb, the Privy Council held "that in a grant of
land with-certain specified boundaries, "as will
further appear by the diagram framed by the
surveyor", where the diagram is repugnant to the
terms of the grant, the latter will prevail,' In
the course of his speech Lord Robertson said,
"If in a matter not requiring elucidation the
diagram is repugnant to the text, this merely
shows (what in the present instance is abundantly
proved by other circumstances) that the diagram
is not exact, and affords only a rough delineation
of the farm,"