Reynolds v. Shaw

• Citation: 207 Ala. 274,92 So. 444
• Decision Date: 06 April 1922
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 442.
• Parties: REYNOLDS ET AL. v. SHAW.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

92 So. 444

207 Ala. 274

REYNOLDS ET AL. v. SHAW.

8 Div. 442.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 6, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Action by Richard Shaw against J. B. Reynolds and another on the common count to recover money alleged to have been paid on a void contract to sell realty-void for insufficiency of description. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6 Acts 1911, p. 450. Reversed and remanded.

W. H Blanton and R. E. Smith, both of Huntsville, for appellants.

Betts &amp Richardson, of Huntsville, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Plaintiff sued to recover of defendants the sum of $400 received by them to the use of plaintiff. Plaintiff's evidence showed that the money was paid as a cash payment under a written contract for the sale by defendants to plaintiff of "the following described real estate situated in Madison county, Ala. viz.: Located 1 1/2 mi. east New Market and containing 75 acres more or less."

On the theory that the contract was void on its face because of the uncertainty and insufficiency of the description of the land intended to be sold, the trial judge excluded all the parol evidence offered by defendants in aid of the description, and gave for plaintiff the general affirmative charge with hypothesis.

While the description, standing alone, would not suffice for the identification of the land, it nevertheless does not show on its face that it is equally applicable to more than one tract of land, and hence does not fall within the class of patent ambiguities in aid of which parol evidence is forbidden.

The decisions on this subject are numerous, and it is not necessary to repeat the rules which have been so often stated by this court. Chambers v. Ringstaff, 69 Ala. 140; Greene v. Dickson, 119 Ala. 346, 24 So. 422, 72 Am. St. Rep. 920; Caston v. McCord, 130 Ala. 318, 30 So. 431; Head v. Sanders, 189 Ala. 443, 66 So. 621; Nolen v. Henry, 190 Ala. 540, 67 So. 500, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 792.

So far as the present case is concerned, we think the question has been clearly and conclusively settled adversely to the contention of plaintiff and the rulings of the trial court by the case of O'Neal v. Seixas, 85 Ala. 80, 4 So. 745, where the description was not substantially different from the one before us, and which has been cited with approval over and over again. In that case the land was described as "a lot of land near Florence, north of the fair grounds, containing 35 acres, more or less," and it was held that the description could be aided by parol evidence, although the purchaser had never been put in possession.

Equally as strong is the case of Greene v. Dickson, 119 Ala 346, ^[1] wherein the same ruling was made in support of a conveyance describing the land as "part of N.W. 1/4 of sec. 4, T....