## Facts

- In 1902, Albert Tinklepaugh conveyed to James McGowan (a predecessor in interest to Cedar Lane Ranch, Inc.) a tract in Granite County described as lying west of a county road (now Montana Highway 1), with the acreage stated only as “about seven acres” and the location described by reference to the road and other boundary-type calls.
- In 1916, Tinklepaugh conveyed the land east of the same road to Carl Nelson. That deed excluded the parcel previously conveyed west of the road, again using approximate acreage language (about/approximately seven acres) to refer to the excluded tract.
- Carl Nelson later conveyed his interest to Carl Nelson Ranch Company in 1964, and subsequent deeds in the Nelson chain did not clearly describe or convey any land west of the highway.
- For decades, the ranches operated on the assumption that the portion of the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 26 lying west of the road was a small parcel (roughly seven acres).
- In 1994, a Montana highway right-of-way survey showed that more than seven acres—potentially up to about thirteen acres—of the NE ¼ NE ¼ lay west of Highway 1, creating a dispute over the additional acreage west of the highway.
- Cedar Lane Ranch filed a quiet title action seeking title to all of the NE ¼ NE ¼ land lying west of Highway 1. Record title holders (the Lundbergs and heirs) were served by publication and did not appear, resulting in default.
- Carl Nelson Ranch Company appeared and counterclaimed, asserting an interest in an indeterminate portion of the excess acreage west of Highway 1.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Cedar Lane Ranch on its quiet title claim and against Carl Nelson Ranch on the counterclaim. Carl Nelson Ranch appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1902 and 1916 deeds were transfers in gross, so that the deeds’ boundary/location descriptions controlled and the “about/approximately seven acres” language did not limit the west-of-road conveyance to seven acres.
2. Whether Carl Nelson Ranch Company had record title or color of title to any of the disputed land west of Highway 1 based on its chain of title.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment quieting title in Cedar Lane Ranch to the portion of the NE ¼ NE ¼ lying west of Montana Highway 1, including acreage in excess of seven acres.
- The Court held the original conveyances used words of approximation and described the tract by reference to fixed location and boundaries (the road and other calls), indicating a sale in gross rather than a sale by the acre.
- Because the conveyance was in gross, the boundary/location description governed; the estimated acreage did not cap the grant at seven acres even if later measurement showed a larger area west of the highway.
- The Court determined Carl Nelson Ranch’s chain of title did not convey land west of the highway and therefore did not provide a basis for record title or color of title to the disputed parcel.
- Having resolved the case based on deed construction and chain of title, the Court did not need to decide whether adverse possession supplied an alternative ground to quiet title.

## Legal Principles

- When a deed identifies land by definite location or boundary calls and uses “about” or “approximately” to state acreage, the transaction is generally treated as a sale in gross, and the acreage figure is an estimate rather than a limit on the conveyance.
- In construing deeds, boundary/location descriptions control over an estimated statement of quantity where the two conflict.
- A later survey that shows more (or less) acreage than the estimate does not change what was conveyed when the deed’s boundaries can be determined.
- A party cannot claim title to disputed land through record title or color of title when its chain of title does not describe or convey that land.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Cedar Lane Ranch because the 1902 and 1916 deeds conveyed the west-of-road tract as a sale in gross, making the “about seven acres” language only an estimate and leaving the boundary/location calls to define the grant, and because Carl Nelson Ranch’s chain of title did not convey any land west of Highway 1.


Cedar Lane Ranch, Inc. v. Lundberg, 991 P.2d 440 (1999)