Andrews v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 31 January 1853
• Docket Number: No. 69.,69.
• Citation: 12 Ga. 431
• Parties: John G. Andrews, plaintiff in error. vs. Celia Murphy and another, defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

12 Ga. 431

John G. Andrews, plaintiff in error. vs. Celia Murphy and another, defendants in error.

No. 69.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JANUARY TERM, 1853.

In Equity, in Harris Superior Court.Tried before Judge Iverson.September Term, 1852.

Celia Murphy and Abigail Murphy filed a bill against John G. Andrews, showing that they were joint tenants with one George H. Booker, in a house and lot of land, lying in Harms County.Afterwards, the Sheriff levied upon, and sold the land as the property of Booker, and Andrews became the purchaser; that Andrews took possession of the entire property, and refused to complainants any participation therein; that he rented the house for thirty-six dollars, for the year 1849, and since that time has removed the house off the premises, and appropriated the same to his own use.The prayer of the bill was for an account for the rent and value of the house removed.

On the trial, the counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the bill for want of equity, which motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.Defendant's counsel then moved the Court to compel complainants to elect to proceed on one of the causes of action set forth, and to abandon the other; which being overruled, defendants excepted.

The complainants introduced in evidence a deed made to themselves and Booker jointly, and in which the property was described as " one house and lot in the Town of Whitesville, in Harris County, Georgia; situate, lying and being between the forks of the LaGrange and West Point roads, running back to B. F. Cleveland's line, containing one quarter of an acre, more or less."

Counsel for respondent requested the Court to charge the Jury that this deed was void for uncertainty.The Court declined so to charge, and respondent excepted.

It appeared that the fi. fa. levied on this house and lot, under which it was sold, was issued against the complainants as well as Booker, and that the complainants pointed out this property to the Sheriff, to be levied on.

Respondent's counsel requested the Court to charge the Jury, that if they believed that the house and lot were levied on, advertised and sold as the property of Booker, without mentioning the title or interests of the other complainants, that fact did not of itself prevent the title to the entire premises, passing to the purchaser; which charge the Court refused to give, but on thecontrary, charged, that the sale passed the title to the purchaser to Booker\'s interest only.

To this charge and refusal to charge respondent excepted.

Wellborn, for plaintiff in error.

Ramsey, for defendant in error.

By the Court.—Nisbet, J. delivering the opinion.

I do not consider that the objection to the deed in this case, upon the ground of uncertainty in the description of the premises conveyed, is at all tenable.It is necessary that there be in all valid deeds, a description of the thing conveyed, and there must be such certainty in the description, as clearly shows what the grantor intended to convey, and as will render it practicable to identify the premises.The rule is laid down with sufficient clearness by Judge Marshall in the following words: " it is undoubtedly essential to the validity of a grant, that there should be a thing granted, which must be so described as to be capable of being distinguished from other things of the same kind.But it is not necessary that the grant itself should contain such a description as without the aid of extrinsic testimony, to ascertain precisely what is conveyed."Blake vs. Doherty, 5 Wheat. 359.The description here is " one house and lot in the Town of Whitesville, in Harris County, Georgia, situate, lying and being between the forks of the LaGrange and West Point roads, running back to B. F. Cleveland's line, containing one quarter of an acre, more or less."It is full enough for all purposes of intention and identification.It contains within itself almost perfect evidence of locality and quantity.There is scarcely room for the possibility of a mistake.The character of the property, a house and lot; their locality, the Town of Whitesville, Harris County, Georgia; and further, lying in the forks of the LaGrange and West Point roads; the quantity, one quarter of an acre, and its boundaries, the two roads, and B. F. Cleveland's line.If Lord Mansfield could uphold a deed, when the descriptiononly named the quantity of the land, and the persons in whose possession it was, surely we can sustain this deed.5 Taunt. 207.

This bill is filed by two tenants in common, against a third, for an account, and in its allegations, and by the testimony at the hearing, makes the following case.The complainants became bound with one Booker for the purchase money of a house and lot in the Town of Whitesville, with the understanding that the title thereto should be executed to him and them jointly.This was accordingly done, and they and he became thereby joint tenants of the property.The complainants and Booker, were all sued for the purchase money, and judgment went against...