Taylor v. De Soto Lumber Co.

I dissent from the majority opinion. There are two lines of authorities. One holds to the doctrine that there must be a positive identification in the writing of the debt referred to, that it must name the amount of the debt. Another line of authorities holds to the doctrine that the identification of the debt may be by parol evidence provided the writing itself points with certainty to the matter aliunde. 17 Ruling-Case Law, p. 905, section 264. Mississippi has aligned herself with the latter. Hart v. Boyt, 54 Miss. 547; Heflin v. Kinard, 67 Miss. 522, 7 So. 493; Yarbrough v. Gilland, 77…