Little v. Thomas
Decision Date | 05 February 1920 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 11 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 66,85 So. 490 |
Parties | LITTLE v. THOMAS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Ejectment by J.A. Thomas against Mary K. Little and another. From judgment for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J.M Miller, of Gadsden, for appellant.
O.B Roper and P.E. Culli, both of Gadsden, for appellee.
The appeal is prosecuted from a judgment for plaintiff in a statutory action of ejectment.
The undisputed facts are that on the 13th of March, 1916, E.H and Mary K. Little (the appellant) executed a mortgage on the lands sued for, to secure the payment of $2,300 to one J.T. Hagin. The debt was evidenced by eight promissory notes, seven of which were for $300 and the last for $200, due respectively in June, September, and December, 1916, March, June, September, and December, 1917, and March, 1918. After the last note had matured, on April 16, 1918, the mortgage was foreclosed under the power contained therein. J.A. Thomas became the purchaser for the sum of $2,567.66, and received a deed to the lands described, executed by the mortgagee in the names of the mortgagors. The judgment rendered on the verdict of the jury was for the lands sued for, viz.:
"Lot numbered A being a certain parcel of land commencing at the west corner of lot numbered thirty-three (33) in block twenty-nine (29), and thence easterly along Norris avenue, a distance of sixty-two and one-half (62 1/2) feet, thence in a northeasterly direction one hundred and twelve and one-half (112 1/2) feet to a stake, thence in a westerly direction thirty-eight (38) feet to an alley, thence in a southerly direction along the line of said alley to beginning point, according to map and plat of the second survey of Alford's addition to Alabama City, in Etowah county, Ala."
The deed from the Bells to John T. Hagin, the mortgage executed by appellant (Little) to said Hagin, and the deed made on foreclosure to J.A. Thomas, contained the foregoing description, except that the words "thence in a northeasterly direction one hundred and twelve and one-half (112 1/2) feet to a stake," in the complaint and judgment, are given in said deeds and mortgage as "thence in a northerly direction one hundred and twelve and one-half (112 1/2) feet to a stake." Appellant's counsel propounded this question: "Was the description in the mortgage and deed sufficient without the aid of parol evidence?" If not, should not defendant's requested general affirmative charge have been given?
On the trial, defendant offered as a witness the judge of probate of said county and asked him:
"Is there on file now or was there on file on the 13th day of March, 1916, a map of lot A, lot No. 33, block No. 29, of the second survey of Alford's addition to Alabama City, in the probate office of Etowah county, Ala.?"
The plaintiff objected to the question, and the court sustained the objection. To this action the defendant duly excepted. Defendant's attorney stated that he offered to show by the witness that there was not on file in his office on the 13th of March, 1916, and that there was not on record in the probate office of Etowah county, at that time or now, any map or plat known as Alford's addition to Alabama City, Ala. Plaintiff objected to the evidence offered to be proved; the court sustained objection and refused to allow the defendant to make the proof by said witness; and to this action of the court due exception was reserved. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284, 308, 56 Am.Rep. 31; Allen v. State, 73 Ala. 23; B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 286 et seq., 60 So. 262.
In this suit by a purchaser at foreclosure sale under the power contained in a mortgage against the mortgagors holding possession of the lands after foreclosure, is the description contained in the deed, mortgage, and foreclosure deed in evidence, so vague and indefinite and uncertain as that the lands cannot be located without the aid of parol evidence? When lands are described in a complaint with sufficient certainty to enable the sheriff to definitely know what lands to place the plaintiff in ejectment in possession of, in event of recovery, then the description is "with sufficient legal accuracy"; that is, whenever the complaint in ejectment contains descriptive data from which a certain and definite description of the lands may be obtained--as, for instance, by a survey--the law is satisfied. Jones v. Wild, 186 Ala. 540, 542, 65 So. 349; Welden v. Brown, 185 Ala. 171, 64 So. 430; Hunnicutt v. Head, 179 Ala. 567, 60 So. 831; Griffin v. Hall, 111 Ala. 601, 20 So. 485; Reynolds v. Trawick, 197 Ala. 165, 72 So. 378; Goodwin v. Forman, 114 Ala. 489, 21 So. 946.
The rule of descriptions in conveyances that may be aided by parol has been recently stated by Mr. Justice Anderson as follows:
The decision in City of Mobile v. Chapman, 202 Ala. 194, 200, 79 So. 566, 572, contains this statement:
. Thomas v. Cowin, 147 Ala. 478, 39 So. 898; East B'ham. Co. v. B'ham. Mach. Co., 160 Ala....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Birmingham Amusement Co. v. Norris
... ... 37 So. 427, citing 21 A. & E. Ency.Law (2d Ed.) 471; ... Montgomery & E. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448, ... 457, 54 Am.Rep. 72; West v. Thomas, 97 Ala. 622, ... 625, 11 So. 768; Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes, 148 Ala ... 146, 152, 41 So. 988; Southern R. Co. v. Bates, 194 ... Ala. 85, 69 So ... 258, 264; and the applications of the rule in those cases ... show very clearly that it is without application here. See, ... in accord, Little v. Thomas, 204 Ala. 66 (3), 85 So ... The ... case of Walker v. Gunnels, 188 Ala. 206, 209, 66 So ... 45, is in conflict with the ... ...
-
Payton v. Madison
...or the certificate thereto affects the question here involved. Thrasher v. Royster, 187 Ala. 350, 65 So. 796. The case of Little v. Thomas, 204 Ala. 66, 85 So. 490, is distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case was a significant difference between the description used in the complai......
-
Hinds v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans
...is the effect of our decisions. Lodge v. Wilkerson, 165 Ala. 302, 51 So. 609; McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135; Little v. Thomas, 204 Ala. 66, 85 So. 490; Martin v. Baines, 217 Ala. 326, 116 So. Nolen v. Henry, 190 Ala. 540, 67 So. 500, Ann.Cas.1917B, 792; Cheeseman Realty Co. v. ......
-
Horn v. Peek
...222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619; Hughes v. Allen, 229 Ala. 467, 158 So. 307; Hopkins v. Duggar, 204 Ala. 626, 87 So. 103; Little v. Thomas, 204 Ala. 66, 85 So. 490; Martin v. Carroll, 235 Ala. 30, 177 So. In suits for the sale of land for division, where a judgment by default will describe the la......