Ladnier v. Ladnier

• Decision Date: 18 April 1898
• Citation: 23 So. 430,75 Miss. 777
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: CLOZELLE LADNIER v. JOSEPH LADNIER

23 So. 430

75 Miss. 777

CLOZELLE LADNIER v. JOSEPH LADNIER

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 18, 1898

March 1898

FROM the circuit court of Harrison county HON. T. A. WOOD, Judge.

Ejectment by Joseph Ladnier against Clozelle Ladnier for the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 1, in township 6, range 13 in Harrison county, Mississippi. Plaintiff relied upon a deed from Albert Harrien and Lucinda Harrien, his wife, dated February 24, 1896, bearing the caption, "State of Mississippi, Harrison County, " and describing the lands as "N. W. 1/4 of N.E. N. E. 1/4 of N.W. section 1 township 6, range 13." Defendant relied upon a deed dated March 3, 1896, having the same caption, and referring to the land conveyed as being "in said county and state " and describing the same further as "northeast quarter of northwest quarter and northwest quarter of northeast quarter in section 1, in township 6 south, range 13 west." Both deeds purported to rest upon a consideration of one hundred dollars. The testimony shows that the two forty-acre tracts sued for were the land that plaintiff intended to buy, and his grantors intended to convey to him. At the time of the conveyance to defendant plaintiff's deed had not been recorded, but there was evidence tending to show that defendant knew of its existence, and the jury were instructed as to the effect of such knowledge, if ascertained by them as a fact. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

W. G. Evans, Jr., and J. M. Shivers, for appellant.

Construing the deed to Joseph Ladnier in the most liberal manner so as to give effect, if possible, to the intention of the parties, we arrive at the following conclusions: 1. That the description of land does not and cannot apply to any lands, either in Harrison county or in any other county in the state of Mississippi, all lands in said county being described as being south of ranges west of St. Stephen's meridian. There is absolutely nothing in said instrument to show where the lands described are situated. True, the caption of the deed contains the words, "State of Mississippi, County of Harrison, " but the caption in this case has nothing to do with the body of the instrument, simply showing locus in quo the instrument was executed. We say nothing of the other manifest deficiencies in the body of the instrument, but confine ourselves to the indisputable fact that the lands attempted to be conveyed by said pretended deed could not be located by any surveyor unless aided by parol evidence. Something must be added before it can be determined which of several things be meant. The ambiguity is patent, and cannot be aided by parol evidence [ Haughton v. Sartor, 71 Miss. 357, overruling Foute v. Fairman, 48 Miss. 536], and the court below erred, both in admitting parol evidence in the attempt to aid and make certain the patent ambiguity in said writing.

Mayes & Harris, for the appellees.

Was the deed to Joseph Ladnier void because the land was described as "N. W. 1/4 of N.E. N. E. 1/4 of N.W. section 1, township 6, range 13?" The deed was not void because it omitted to state the county and state in which the lands lay. Hanna v. Renfro, 32 Miss. 125; Peacher v. Strauss, 47 Miss. 353.

Was the deed void because the expression "1/4" was omitted after the letters "N. E." and "N.W." respectively? Those letters are manifestly, and by general custom, universally understood, employed as contractions, in order to indicate the survey descriptions of lands by the government subdivisions. "N." means "north;" "S." means "south;" "W." means "west, " and "E." means "east." This is common knowledge. Also, the combinations of those letters mean things equally well known. "N. E." means "northeast, " and "N. W." means "northwest." And those combinations, as applied to land descriptions by subdivisions of sections, cannot mean anything else but "northeast 1/4" and "northwest 1/4, " respectively. The omission of the character "1/4" in that connection does not, in fact, raise any doubt as to what the writer meant to insert; and therefore the deed is not void. There is no other subdivision of a section to which those letters could be applied. They cannot be used to designate a halfsection, nor an eighty, which is a half of a fourth, nor a forty, which is a quarter of a fourth. Bowres v. Chambers, 53 Miss. 259; Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596.

Neither does the omission of the word "and, " which properly belongs between the two expressions "N. E." and "N. W. 1/4, " invalidate the deed. It is manifest what is the word omitted. In fact, the whole description is merely elliptical, and the ellipsis is more embarrassing to the eye than it is to the ear.

E. M. Barber, on same side.

The caption of the deed to plaintiff is as follows: "State of Mississippi, Harrison County." In the case of Hanna v. Renfro 32 Mississippi, 125, this court said that the failure to mention in the deed the county or state in which the lands lay was no ground of objection to the introduction of the deed as evidence. It was but a latent ambiguity, which was susceptible of explanation. The caption of the deed is sufficient to indicate the county and state in which the land is located; and, further, the evidence shows that the land lay in Harrison county, in the state of Mississippi.

...