Legal Opinion

Carter v. Ray

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 26, 1943No. 30043PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. "It is undoubtedly essential to the validity of a grant that there should be a thing granted, which must be so described as to be capable of being distinguished from other things of the same kind. But it is not necessary that the grant itself should contain such a description as, without the aid of extrinsic testimony, to ascertain precisely what is conveyed."

2. While the description, "my home at 401 North Jefferson Street, Albany, Georgia," furnished a poor description of the property which formed the subject-matter of the contract, it was not on its face so vague for indefiniteness as to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Keener v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1855
  2. Lewis v. AmorousCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  3. Horton v. MurdenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  4. Andrews v. MurphySupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
  5. Bunger v. GrimmSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Fuentes v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Saliba v. SalibaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
  3. Stanaland v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  4. Gates v. L. G. DeWitt, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  5. Campbell v. Mutual Service Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API