Deed—Inconsistent Description —■ Ambiguity — Uncertainty—Evidence.—Where a deed on its face contains two inconsistent descriptions either of which would identify a different piece of property from that described by the other, there is disclosed a patent ambiguity which, as a general rule, parol evidence is not admissible to remove and the instrument is void for uncertainty.

Id.—Construction of Description.—Whether the description is uncertain or not is to be determined from an inspection of the entire deed, and in considering it the construction to be put upon it must not only be a reasonable one, but such as will give effect to the deed rather than defeat it.

Id.—Rejection op False Calls.—If from the description in the deed, taking into consideration all its calls, it is possible by rejecting calls which are apparently false to ascertain its application to a particular tract of land as embraced within the description, the false call will be rejected and the deed sustained.

Ib.—Land Described as Having House Thereon.—A reference in a description in a deed to a house as situated on the lot conveyed is a part of the description, and may be sufficient to control a false call in the description and identify the lot intended to be conveyed.

Id.—Part op Lot—Measurements Including Entire Lot.—While a call in a deed for a “part of a lot” is in itself an indefinite call, if it is followed by a reference to measurements which are sufficient to describe and embrace the entire tract according to the map referred to, the indefinite description must give way to the definite one, and if the latter is sufficient to embrace the entire lot according to its boundaries on the map it must control and be given effect.

Id.—False Description op Lot as Being on Corner.—Where a deed describes the land conveyed as “being part of lot ten of block ‘V’ of the Mott tract, the same being the lot on the corner” of certain designated streets, “being sixty-five feet front by one hundred and sixty-five feet deep and a two-story frame house situate thereon,” and the evidence showed that lot ten was situated sixty feet from the corner referred to, and was the only lot in the vicinity of that corner having a house thereon, the recital that the lot was on the corner will be rejected as a false call, and the fact that such a house was on lot ten will identify it as the lot intended to be conveyed.