Opinion of the Court-McCarran, C. J. bench, size 6x10 rods deep, to be taken either way from my house, for the sum of $75 per rod, or, if it is taken 6x20 rods, for the sum of $100 per rod; in either case on the following agreement," etc. The court, in passing upon the matter, held, in conformity with the general rule, that a description is regarded as sufficiently definite and certain when it contains a reference from which it can be made certain. The description there was held to contain no reference from which definiteness could be established. The contract was held void for uncertainty. That case is an expression of the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to supply that which is lacking in the contract by reason of which the indefiniteness resulted. In the case of Knight v. Alexander, 42 Or. 521, 71 Pac. 657, the description in the agreement was 100 acres of land off the west end of a certain tract of land lying along Lake Labish. There the court, while reviewing many cases applicable to the question here, said: "Courts do not permit parol evidence to be given to describe the property intended to be included in the contract, and then apply such description to the terms thereof." To the same effect are the cases of Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Goodman, 62 Neb. 197, 86 N. W. 1082, and Nippolt v. Kammon, 39 Minn. 372, 40 N. W. 266, and Wiegert v. Franck, 56 Mich. 200, 22 N. W. 303. Following the rule of the admissibility of parol evidence under such circumstances as laid down by courts and chancellors in so many instances, the trial court in this instance ruled correctly in excluding evidence bearing upon the selection of a 5.21-acre tract contended by appellant to be excluded from the effect of this suit. As we have already intimated, had the appellant exercised the option to purchase the entire tract involved in this controversy, and in so exercising had complied with the terms of the lease, a different question would be involved. The term "any part," used in the lease, having no fixity as to amount, position, boundary, or form, was Opinion of the Court-McCarran, C. J. so indefinite that parol evidence could not, under the rule, be resorted to for its establishment. We are referred by appellant to the case of Schroeder v. Gemeinder, 10 Nev. 355. There Mr. Justice Hawley, speaking for this court, referred approvingly to the decision of the Supreme Court of California in the case of De Rutte v. Muldrow, 16 Cal. 513, wherein that court had before it a controversy in which was involved an instrument of lease containing the provision: "That the said Muldrow shall have the privilege of purchasing any part of said land during the continuation of this lease, at its value in preference to any other persons." It will be observed that neither the Schroeder case nor the De Rutte-Muldrow case is of assistance to us in determining the question here involved. Indeed, it may be said that neither of these cases holds contrary to the view we have heretofore expressed in conformity with the authorities cited. In neither of these cases does the court attempt to discuss the validity of the contract from the standpoint of uncertainty as to the premises described. In the Schroeder case the premises were specifically and definitely fixed by the description, while in the Muldrow case the controversy turned on the right of the lessee to purchase any part of the premises when such part had been designated and offered for sale to third parties. The case rather turned on the right of one to make such contract. The question of definiteness of the premises involved was not before the court, as we read the decision. The uncertainty existing with reference to the option sought to be established by the lease here in question exists not only with reference to the description and amount of the land to be selected, but equally so with reference to the manner of selection or as to who was to make such selection. Appellant contends that by this language the meaning conveyed was that he alone had the right to make the selection as to the part which he would elect to purchase. But the language used fails Opinion of the Court-McCarran, C. J. to affirm this contention. It might with equal propriety be claimed by respondent that she should make the selection, and under such circumstances would it be contended that appellant was bound to purchase the part selected by respondent for sale at the price stipulated? The appellant is not designated as the party to make the selection any more than is the respondent. The indefiniteness as to this phase has more than one aspect. Our attention has also been directed to the case of Fleishman v. Woods, 135 Cal. 256, 67 Pac. 276, wherein the Supreme Court of California dealt with the question here presented, and we deem that case worthy of comment, only for the purposes, however, of differentiation. In that case Fleishman brought his action to quiet title to a certain ten-acre tract of land. At a subsequent date the defendant, Woods, filed a cross-complaint praying for the specific performance of a certain contract relating thereto. This contract, made the basis of the cross-complaint, was entered into between the plaintiff, Fleishman, and a third party, and provided that upon the third party's performing certain conditions he should, at the end of three years, become entitled to a conveyance "of 412 acres of the west half of said 10 acres, to be selected by the plaintiff." The court, in dealing with the specific question, said: "There is no uncertainty as to the manner in which the selection is required to be made, nor do we see any lack of power in a court of equity to compel the selection to be made." It will be noted that by the cross-complaint in that case the defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to do that which by his contract he had agreed to do, namely, to select the number of acres designated. In the matter at bar the party to make the selection is unnamed and unindicated. Where the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties here at all analogous to those referred to by the court of California in the FleishmanWoods case, we would have no hesitancy in concurring Opinion of the Court-McCarran, C. J. in the rule there asserted. Whatever may be said as to the doctrine laid down in Fleishman v. Woods, supra, the correct rule, and that which is in conformity with greater weight of authority, is to be found in the case of Eaton v. Wilkins, 163 Cal. 742, 127 Pac. 71, where the Supreme Court of California, speaking through Mr. Justice Melvin, said: "The description in the contract must be sufficient to bind interested parties, and cannot be made to depend for its very existence upon the subsequent action of one of them." Our attention has been directed to the case of Repetto v. Baylor, 61 N. J. Eq. 501, 48 Atl. 774. The case was there brought before the chancellor on motion to dismiss under rule. On such motion it was held that the facts alleged in the bill of complaint were to be taken as true. In the light of this rule the court held that specific performance would be required; but the contract as set forth, together with the allegations of the bill in equity, established an agreement between the parties whereby the vendor was to convey 138 lots, "the same to be chosen and designated by the said R., and said lots to remain as now marked upon map made by Morris Hillman," etc.; further, that at the time of making the contract the vendee, by the vendor's direction, marked on the map designated the 138 lots referred to in the contract. In that case the contract entered by the parties, together with the map setting forth the marked selections, became a part of the bill in equity, and the court said: "In the contract and map exhibited in the amended bill it appears that certain ascertained lots were originally selected by both parties, and that there was an agreement of both that, in case any of them had been previously sold, one party should choose an equal number from those indicated in the same blocks to take their places. Here was an exact designation of a number of lots, and an agreement whereby, in case any selected could not be conveyed for want of title, one party only Opinion of the Court-McCarran, C. J. should choose enough other lots from the defined limits to fill the number. The minds of the parties had come to a final agreement upon the subject-matter of the sale; the vendor agreeing, in a named contingency, that the vendee should select what a part of it should be. Nothing remained to be done between them as negotiating contractors. It was always in the power of either to enforce the contract-the vendor, by requiring payment of the price; the vendee, by selecting the number of lots necessary to supply the deficiency and requiring conveyance." The rule, as asserted by some commentators and courts, that a contract giving one of the parties the right of selection of the lot or lots to be conveyed is not incapable of specific performance, would be applicable here, if the conditions of the contract or the facts presented were in keeping with the rule. In the matter at bar the absence of designation in the contract as to who was to make the selection constitutes an element which removes this case from the rule referred to. We would close the question with the assertion of a rule which, directly applicable and eminently just under the requirement of the statute of frauds, will serve to recapitulate our views as heretofore set forth: The description of real property in an option contract must be so set forth in the writing that it can be identified from the instrument itself. Parol evidence is admissible for no other purpose than to show the application of the description, as given in the instrument, to the particular property intended to be conveyed by and described therein. Exclusion of all other property from the effect of the agreement is primarily the purpose of admitting such evidence at all. Not for the purpose of furnishing or supplying a description is parol evidence admissible, but only to identfy that which the agreement describes. (Barnes v. Rea, 219 Pa. 287, 68 Atl. 839; Heyward v. Bradley, 179 Fed. 325, 102 C. C. A. 509; Wadick v. Mace, 191 N. Y. 1, 83 N. E. 571; Bauer v. Lumaghi Co., 209 Ill. 316, 70 N. E. 634; Broadway |