Bell v. Leggett

• Decision Date: 06 February 1912
• Parties: BELL ET AL. v. LEGGETT ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

57 So. 836

175 Ala. 443

BELL ET AL. v. LEGGETT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Ejectment by Julia A. Bell and others against A. D. Leggett and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

O. M Alexander, for appellants.

Willett & Willett, for appellees.

SAYRE J.

Action of statutory ejectment by appellants against appellees. Plaintiffs claimed as heirs at law of one Bell. Defendants claimed under a mortgage deed of trust from Bell to one Hughes, foreclosure by bill in equity with due process, and mesne conveyances from the purchaser. In the mortgage the land in controversy was described as follows: Beginning 80 rods west of the south of the southeast corner of section 7, township 16, range 9 in about one rod north of Oxford road in section 18, running north within 173 rods of north line of section 7; thence west within 49 rods of west line of said section; thence south to one rod of mill ditch; thence east one rod from said ditch to where fence crosses same; thence with the meanderings of said fence to the corner east; thence east to the beginning corner near the road--making 180 acres, more or less. A copy of the mortgage deed of trust was made an exhibit to the bill for foreclosure, but in the body of the bill the land was described as "beginning eighty rods west of south of the southwest corner of section seven, township sixteen, range nine, in about one rod north of Oxford road in section eighteen, running north," and so on. In the subsequent proceedings in the equity court, including the decree of foreclosure, deed to the purchaser, writ of possession, and in the purchaser's deed to the defendants, the descriptions followed that in the body of the bill. The description of land sued for in the complaint followed that in the mortgage deed of trust. The argument for appellants is that "there was a patent ambiguity in the descriptions of the lands in controversy, that said descriptions are uncertain and vague, and that the foreclosure was void." This argument is elaborated, of course, and thought to be sustained by the citation of authorities; but to no effect. The description found in the court proceedings and in later deeds is not only ambiguous; it is impossible. There is in section 18 no point 80 rods or any other distance west, or south, or southwest, of the southwest corner of section 7. There may be also innumerable points about one rod north of the Oxford road in section 18 and in other sections. And since there is no authority for singling out any one term in the description of the starting point and locating the error there rather than elsewhere, it must be conceded...