Craig v. Pendleton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; Emon 0. Mahoney, Chancellor; 1. Where a deed is void for a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is not admissible to “piece out” a description.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; Emon 0. Mahoney, Chancellor; 1. Where a deed is void for a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is not admissible to “piece out” a description. The,thing granted must be described with sufficient certainty to ascertain its identity. 3 Ark. 18, 57; 30 Ark. 657; Id. 640; 42 Ark. 350; 41 Ark. 49s; 60 Ark. 487. A contract written as the parties intended it to be written cannot be reformed for their mistake of its legal effect. 46 Ark. 167; 35 Ark. 470; 68 Ark. 150; 71 Ark. 614'; 80 Ark. 461; 81 Ark. 420; 85 Ark. 62. 2. Where a deed is void for uncertainty of…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is an action instituted in the chancery court of Union County by W. M. Green and W. G. Pendleton as his trustee for the reformation and foreclosure of a deed of trust executed by one Burgy on a lot situated in the town of El Dorado to secure the payment of a debt. Burgy owned the lot in controversy, which contained about one acre, and occupied it as his residence. He had purchased the property from one Soxon, but the description in the conveyance was void for uncertainty. Burgy became indebted to Green, and executed to him -the mortgage or deed of trust in question to secure the debt.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Varner-Collins Hardware Co. v. New Milford Security Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Modica v. CombsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Sherwin-Williams Company v. LeslieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Bell v. Mid-State Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970