Wo have in this case, a tract of land containing 129 acres, of an irregular figure, bounded by eight lines, all straight, and with definite courses and distances. In order to make partition, it is referred to arbitrators, who aw:arded to the plaintiff “ 29 acres to be cut off of the north -end of it.”
*521His Honor bold that tins award was void for uncertainty. In this there is error. The question is, can the 29 acrt-s be identified by the rules of mathematics, so that the “ cutting off of the 29 acres” will involve no discretion, but be a mere ministerial act ? “ hi cerium est, quod cerium reddi potent.'We think the 29 acres can be indentified by a mere ministerial act, and nothing is left by the award dependent on discretion. Awards are construed liberally, 4> nt res may is valent quoin ■pereatP It is certain, that in order to cut off 29 acres of the north end- of the tract, it must be done by an “ east and west line,” for if the line dips to the north at one end, and to the south at the other, then so much land south of an east and west line, as is included, is not a “ part of the north end of the tract,” and so much land north of an east and west-line, as is excluded, is a part of the north end of the tract.
The next question is, can the 29 acres be indentified by scientific principles, without resort to discretion ?
Suppose a tract of land in form a parallelogram, lines north and south, east and west, containing one hundred acres. Can twenty-five acres be cut off at the north end without room for discretion ? Certainly. All that is to be done — begin at the north corner, measure off one fourth the length of the line running south, and then run an east and west line, and you have 25 acres cut off of the north end. It is done by a rule of arithmetic, in my school days called “ the single rulo of three,” “ as 100 acres is to 25, so is the whole length of the line to the line sought for,” to-wit, one fourth. If 29 acres are to be cut off, apply “ the single rule of three,” as 100 acres is to 29, so is the whole length of the line to the line sought, and by an east and west line from that point, you have the 29 acres cut off from the north end.
In our case, the figure of the tract being irregular, the <£ single rule of three ” will not serve the purpose, and you may have to resort to “ the double rule of three,” or differential calculus or fluxions, but although (having become rusty *522in my college erudition), I cannot state the rule, there can be no doubt that science gives a rule by which the 29 acres may "be identified with mathematical certainty.
Any competent surveyor can do it by running an experimental line on the platfj strike a line East and West, calculate the number of acres North of the line — if over 29 acres move the line to the North, if less than 29 acres move the line to the South until you take in exactly 29 acres, then go into the field and with compass and chain, and by means of the experimental lines, find the east and west line, that will cut off 29 acres and make it. This would be a rude way of doing the thing, and men of science would smile at it, because they have a more certain rule, but still, by it the 29 acres may be identified with sufficient certainty for all practical purposes.
Judgment reversed, and judgment that plaintiff have a decree for specific performance.
Eek CnitiAM. Judgment accordingly.