Tatum v. Croom

• Decision Date: 27 April 1895
• Citation: 30 S.W. 885
• Parties: TATUM et al. v. CROOM.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 885

30 S.W. 885

TATUM et al. v. CROOM.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 27, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.

Bill in chancery by G. N. Croom against M. T. Tatum and another to set aside a sale of land on execution. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The appellant M. T. Tatum brought suit before a justice of the peace of Sebastian county against appellee, G. N. Croom, and had a writ of attachment issued. The constable, to whom the writ of attachment was delivered, not finding any personal property, levied the same upon real estate, and made his return to that effect. Afterwards the justice of the peace rendered judgment in said suit against Croom for $23.30 and costs, and sustained the attachment. A transcript of this judgment was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of said county. Thereupon the same was entered in the docket of the circuit for common-law judgments, and an order of sale was issued by the clerk directing the sheriff to sell said land. The sheriff sold the land, and the appellants claim title under the sheriff's sale. This action was brought by appellee to set aside said sale and recover the land. No objection was made to the form of the action. The finding and decree were that said sale was void for want of a sufficient description of the lands sold, in the return, order of sale, and advertisement upon which the sale was based. The land in controversy is all that part of the S. ½ of S. E. ¼ section 16, township 6 N., range 30 W., lying on the north side of the public road leading from Greenwood to Burnville, and containing 23.31 acres.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

John S. Sittle and R. T. Powell, for appellants. F. W. M. Boone, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

The only question for us to determine in the case is whether there was a sufficient description of the land in controversy in the sheriff's deed, and in the proceedings upon which the same is based. The constable who levied the writ of attachment described the land in his return as follows, to wit: "The N. E. part of S. E. ¼ of S. E. ¼ of section 16, township 6 N., range 30 west, 20 36/100 acres; also N. E. part of S. W. ¼ of S. E. ¼ of said section, township, and range, containing 2 95/100." This description was copied into the judgment of the justice, the order of sale by the clerk, in the advertisement of the sale, and in the deed by the sheriff. Did it sufficiently designate the land in controversy? The description in the return of the officer, and in the order of sale and deed, must be sufficient to identify the land, but parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of enabling the court to understand the terms used in the description. If, after the terms used are explained, it appears that, as commonly understood, they clearly designate the property, the description is sufficient. But the parol evidence must be directed to an explanation of the terms used in the description. The sale cannot be supported by showing what the sheriff intended to sell, when the description of the land in the deed and in the proceedings on which the sale is based is so defective that it cannot be ascertained therefrom what land was levied upon and sold....