Pfeiffer v. Lindsay

• Decision Date: 04 June 1886
• Parties: PFEIFFER and others v. LINDSAY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

1 S.W. 264

PFEIFFER and others v. LINDSAY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 4, 1886.

Appeal from Montague county.

Trespass to establish title to land, plaintiff claiming by purchase at execution sale, and defendant claiming by a prior purchase direct from the execution debtor.

Stephens, Matlock & Herbert, for appellant, P. Pfeiffer & Co. Davis & Garnett, for appellee, J. M. Lindsay.

WILLIE, C. J.

The sheriff's return to the writ of attachment shows a levy upon 50 acres of the J. M. Moss survey, abstract No. 462, near town of Burlington, in Montague county. The judgment foreclosing the attachment lien describes the land as "fifty acres of the J. M. Moss sur., abstract No. 462, situated near the town of Burlington, in Montague county, Texas." The order of sale issued upon the judgment describes the land in almost the exact language used in the judgment, and with no greater particularity. The sheriff's deed to the purchaser at execution sale describes the land as 50 acres of land out of the J. M. Moss survey, situated in Montague county, Texas, abstract No. 462, situated near the town of Spanish Fort, Montague county, Texas, and described as beginning, etc. The description of the land contained in the levy, judgment, and order of sale is obviously imperfect and insufficient. No one, from reading it, could tell what was the shape of the 50 acres, nor in what part of the Moss survey it was situated. It is of the utmost importance that land to be sold at execution sale should be so definitely described as to inform the public what particular tract will be offered to purchasers, and each bidder what land he will get if his should be the best offer at the sale. Otherwise, bidding would be discouraged instead of promoted, and the rights of the defendant sacrificed. To find out what land is to be sold, purchasers look to the proceedings by virtue of which the sale is to take place, which are, in the present case, the levy, the judgment, and the order of sale. If from these an intended purchaser would be left in hopeless uncertainty as to where and what the land is, he will be deterred from buying, at least for anything like a reasonable price. The case would be one of patent ambiguity, and the description worthless and void. The case of a description so imperfect as to designate no tract of land whatever is different from one when the terms used are sufficient to identify the property, but they are not such as are understood by every one, though understood by persons familiar with the property, and with the portion of the country in...