Mississippi Industries for the Blind v. Jackson, 40500
| Decision Date | 06 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 40500,40500 |
| Citation | 95 So.2d 109,231 Miss. 135 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND et al. v. Worth JACKSON. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Gordon & Gordon, Liberty, Henley, Jones & Woodliff, Hazlehurst, for appellants.
Roach & Jones, McComb, Lowrey & Stratton, Liberty, for appellee.
On February 4, 1953, Mrs. Maude Sproles executed and delivered a deed of trust to Worth Jackson, which was not recorded until January 27, 1955. The scrivener made an error in the description of a part of the land intended to be covered by this deed of trust in that it described the S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and NE 1/4, Section 28, Township 3, Range 3 E., containing 60 acres, more or less. Mrs. Sproles did own the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said section and that land is not involved in this suit. She did not own the NE 1/4 of said section but owned only the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said section.
Mrs. Sproles was engaged in business in the City of Gloster in partnership with her son-in-law Sidney Hughes. On February 22, 1955, the Wesson Oil and Snowdrift Sales Company obtained a judgment against Mrs. Sproles and Hughes in the amount of $530.16, plus interest and court costs, which judgment was duly enrolled upon the judgment roll of Amite County, Mississippi, on February 25, 1955. On June 14, 1955, a judgment was entered against Mrs. Sproles and Hughes in favor of Corenswet, Inc. in the amount of $326.32, plus interest and court costs, which judgment was duly enrolled on the same day. On August 18, 1955, Mississippi Industries for the Blind obtained a judgment against Mrs. Sproles and Hughes in the amount of $132.03, plus court costs, which was duly entrolled on August 30, 1955. On August 18, 1955, American Scales Manufacturing Company obtained a judgment against Mrs. Sproles and Hughes in the total amount of $210.75, which includes principal, interest, attorney's fees and court costs, and this was enrolled on August 30, 1955.
On September 8, 1955, executions were issued on the said judgments and the sheriff thereafter proceeded to give notice of sale under said executions. Prior to the proposed sale Worth Jackson filed a bill of complaint against Mrs. Maude Sproles and R. E. Smith who was the trustee in the deed of trust held by him, wherein he sought to reform the said deed of trust so as to change 'NE 1/4' to read 'NE 1/4 of SW 1/4'. On November 12, 1955, Worth Jackson filed an amendment to his original bill of complaint wherein he made Ira Jenkins, Sheriff of the county, a defendant to the bill and prayed for an injunction restraining the sheriff from selling the land described as the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and one the same date, by a fiat of the chancellor, a writ of injunction was ordered to be issued and was issued enjoining the sheriff and all other parties from selling the said forty acres of land under the executions.
On November 25, 1955, the said judgment creditors were permitted by the court to intervene as defendants to said bill of complaint, and on January 17, 1956, they filed an answer to the bill of complaint and amendment, wherein, among other things, they charged that their rights as judgment creditors had already attached against said NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 and that it was too late to reform the deed of trust insofar as their rights were concerned and denied that the complainant was entitled to that relief, and prayed that the injunction issued against the sheriff be dissolved and that the sheriff be allowed his fees and expenses by reason of the wrongful suing out of the injunction.
Mrs. Sproles was seventy-seven years of age and unable to attend court because of illness but she testified by deposition as to the error which was made in the description of land in the deed of trust. She also testified that the deed of trust was given in good faith and for value. She did not know, and the record does not disclose, how much balance due is owing on the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust. By stipulation it was agreed that as between the complainant and Mrs. Sproles he was entitled to a reformation of the deed of trust but that the question of priority of liens of the judgment creditors and Worth Jackson were submitted to the court and it was further stipulated and agreed that the judgments in question are all regular and valid.
The chancellor entered a final decree reforming the deed of trust as prayed for, not only as against Mrs. Sproles but as against all of the judgment creditors, and he held 'that sufficient record information existed to furnish the intervenors, defendants, with notice and to place them upon inquiry of the error of the scrivener and the rights and equities of the complainant Worth Jackson to assert and claim his lien on the forty acres of land levied upon for sale under the judgments.'
Section 1555, Code of 1942, makes provision for a lien of an enrolled judgment upon all property of the defendant in the county where so enrolled and provides that the same shall have priority according to the order of enrollment in favor of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor and all persons claiming the property under him after rendition of the judgment.
Section 867, Code of 1942, provides for the recording of conveyances and for priority, and Section 868, Code of 1942, provides that all deeds of trust and mortgages shall be void as to all creditors and subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice unless they be acknowledged or proved and lodged with the clerk of the chancery court of the proper county to be recorded in the same manner that other conveyances are required to be acknowledged or proved and recorded, and the said section further provides that a failure to file such instrument with the clerk for record shall prevent any claim of priority by the holder of such instrument over any similar recorded instrument affecting the same property in the absence of actual notice. Section 869, Code of 1942, provides that every deed of trust, etc. shall take effect as to all creditors only from the time when delivered to the clerk to be recorded and that no deed of trust which is unrecorded or has not been filed for record shall take precedence over any similar instrumet affecting the same property which may be of record; and this section further provides that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Simmons)
...of trust which failed to describe seed house was not effective against subsequent lien creditors); Miss. Industries for the Blind v. Jackson, 231 Miss. 135, 95 So.2d 109, 113 (Miss.1957) (judgment creditors were not put on notice by description that described “an entirely different tract of......
-
Trotter v. Gaddis and McLaurin, Inc., 54214
...the larger tract, is void for uncertainty of description. Wilson v. Clark, 278 So.2d 250 (Miss.1973); Mississippi Industries for the Blind v. Jackson, 231 Miss. 135, 95 So.2d 109 (1957); Heidelberg v. Duckworth, 206 Miss. 388, 40 So.2d 179 (1949); Crosby Lumber and Manufacturing Company v. ......
-
FAVRE PROP. MANAGEMENT, LLC v. Cinque Bambini
...(Miss.1990); Simmons v. Cleveland, 749 So.2d 192, 194-95 (¶ ¶ 4-7) (Miss.Ct.App.1999); see also Miss. Ind. for the Blind v. Jackson, 231 Miss. 135, 140-41, 95 So.2d 109, 111-12 (1957) ("registration of an instrument is constructive notice to the world of the contents of the paper there reco......
-
Wilson v. Clark
...specifying where they are located within the larger tract, is void for uncertainty of description. Mississippi Industries for the Blind v. Jackson, 231 Miss. 135, 95 So.2d 109 (1957); Heidelberg v. Duckworth,206 Miss. 388, 40 So.2d 179 (1949); Crosby Lumber and Manufacturing Company v. Elsa......