TDENEE V. HART. .301 �the tract known as the Carson tract bas about 15 acres cleared, the rest in wild woods; no improvement on it." �Now this testimony not only does not show that any par- ticular 100 acres was intended to be conveyed, but it seeks to include lands obviously not included in the mortgage, and in direct conflict witb the description contained in it. Nor does the evidence now enable us to describe the lands by metes and bounds, or otberwise to identify it, and it would be im- possible to render a decree for the reformation of the mort- gage by identifying the lands, �It is true, the witnesses declare that it was intended to convey aU that was left of the original Brooks tract not cov- ered by the sherilï's deed, but that deed is not produced, nor is any attempt made to identify the land covered by the sheriff's levy and sale, so that if we should decree that com- plainants were entitled to ail the tract except that covered by the sheriff's deed, we should still be unable to identify or separate the land covered by the mortgage, Obviously, the sheriff did not intend to sell an undivided part of the entire estate, He did inteud to sell something that could be iden- tified and could be included by metes and bounds; but ivhat, the record does not show us, and hence it would be utterly impossible in this case to identify the land intended to be covered by the mortgage, �It seems that the parties had very little idea what they were about wlien this mortgage was executed, and the court is in no condition to solve that doubt. If the mortgage is to be reformed for uncertainty or misdescription, the evidence ought at least to be such as to enable us to identify and sepa- rate the land intended to be conveyed, The testimony in this case wholly fails to do this, and for this reason, if for no other, the bill must be dismissed. ��� �
