East v. Karter
Decision Date | 17 June 1926 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 596 |
Parties | EAST et al. v. KARTER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Granted Dec. 9, 1926
Second Application for Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Bill in equity by Frank A. Karter against Esther Beyer East, John F Beyer, and George H. Karter. Respondents Esther Beyer East and John F. Beyer filed a cross-bill against Frank A. Karter and George H. Karter. Demurrer to the cross-bill was sustained, and cross-complainants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Brown & Bland, of Cullman, and Rushton, Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for appellants.
F.E. St. John and Emil Ahlrichs, both of Cullman, for appellee.
Appellee filed his bill for the sale and partition of three certain lots in the city of Cullman. By their cross-bill appellants interposed their claim of ownership of the entire fee. The court sustained appellee's demurrer to the cross-bill, and the cross-complainants have appealed.
The instrument in the form of a conveyance under which appellants claim title describes the lots in controversy as follows:
The muniment of title under which appellants claim is void for uncertainty, because there is nothing to show what "part" is intended. Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n v. Wyeth, 105 Ala. 639, 17 So. 45; Tierney v. Brown, 65 Miss. 563, 5 So. 104, 7 Am.St.Rep. 679; 2 Devlin on Real Estate (3d Ed.) § 1011a; 8 R.C.L. p. 1083, § 140.
We do not see that the reference to a mortgage helps the matter in the least, for, if it be assumed that the mortgage adequately describes the part with which it deals, there is nothing to show that the part described in appellants' muniment is identical with the part described in the mortgage. Moreover, it may well be said that the reference to certain numbered lots means nothing in the absence of further reference to some certain existent map or plat showing the lots to which the so-called deed refers. Thrasher v. Royster, 187 Ala. 350, 65 So. 796.
The reliance for appellant is upon Chambers v. Ringstaff, 69 Ala. 140. We think the facts in that case suffice to show grounds of discrimination which should be observed. The difficulty with appellee's muniment of title in that case was, not that it failed adequately to describe the parts of sections 7 and 17 which his mortgage undertook to convey, that is, there was no suggestion that the parts of the named sections were inadequately described so far as concerned the location of the parts within the sections, but only that nothing was therein said of the state, county, land district, or government survey in which the land lay. However, the instrument did show that sections 7 and 17, to which it referred, were in township 12, range 18. Said the court:
So then the only defect in appellee's muniment of title was that it failed to show that the land was situate in this state. In Meyer Bros. v. Mitchell, 75 Ala. 475, the description in the case upon which appellant relies was referred to in this language, Stone, C.J., concurring, presumptively:
In Jenkins v. Woodward Iron Co., 194 Ala. 371, 69 So. 646, the court said:
--citing Chambers v. Ringstaff, supra.
In Chambers v. Ringstaff the court said:
If the learning of that case has any bearing upon the case in hand, it means that the deed under which appellants claim was affected by patent ambiguity, and that the explanation of it offered in appellants' cross-bill cannot be received.
But, when the court came to consider a conveyance describing the subject of conveyance as "certain portions of a lot in the town of Guntersville, Marshall county, state of Alabama, more particularly described as follows, that is to say, two-thirds of the following described lot number 3," which lot No. 3 was accurately described, it said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Karter v. East
...Beyer East and others, and cross-bill by respondent East. From a decree for respondents, complainant appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 215 Ala. 375, 110 So. 610, and 218 Ala. 536, 119 662. Sayre, J., dissenting. F. E. St. John and Emil Ahlrichs, both of Cullman, for appellant. Earney Bland, of ......
-
Ben Cheeseman Realty Co. v. Thompson
...were considered in the cases of Lodge v. Wilkerson, 165 Ala. 302, 51 So. 609; Sadler v. Radcliff (Ala.Sup.) 111 So. 231; East v. Karter (Ala.Sup.) 110 So. 610. contract was between parties understanding and accustomed to the terms employed in their writing, dated at Birmingham, Ala., descri......
-
King v. Scott
... ... application ... There ... has been much discussion by this court of the sufficiency of ... description. East v. Karter, 215 Ala. 375, 377, 378, ... 110 So. 610. It must be definite and certain, as that which ... may be rendered certain, within the terms ... ...
-
Hinds v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans
... ... 87 acres of land, specifically described in the bill, ... located in the northeast 1/4 of section 6, township 10, ... range 2 east, Blount county, Ala., near the town of Summit ... "The ... only land within the lis pendens is the tract of 87 acres ... described in ... part of the 207 acres of land known and designated as the ... "Brown's Valley Farm." East et al. v. Karter, ... 215 Ala. 375, 110 So. 610 ... That a ... description is such that it may be and was rendered certain ... on this trial, from the ... ...