Morse v. Carpenter
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment for land in Enosburgh. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court, April Term, 1845, — Royce, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Ejectment for land in Enosburgh. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court, April Term, 1845, — Royce, J., presiding. On trial the plaintiff gave in evidence a mortgage deed of the demanded premises, dated February 23, 1843, and executed by the defendant, in which the grantees were described as “ Morse & Houghton, of Bakersfield,” and proved, that the plaintiffs had lately been in partnership at Bakersfield, under the firm of Morse &. Houghton, and that the note described in the condition in the mortgage, and which bore the same date with the mortgage, was execut•ed by the defendant to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
If the description of the grantees was such as to render the deed void, there was error in admitting evidence to ex-" plain and aid that description. But the evidence was rightly admitted, if the ambiguity was legally capable of explanation. The only question, then, is, whether the description was thus fatally defective.'-
A sufficient description of the grantee in a deed is equally indis-" pensable, as that of the subject to be conveyed. And, as instances of incurable uncertainty and defect in this particular, cases are put,- —or recorded…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Wakefield v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Staak v. SigelkowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Kentucky Block Cannel Coal Co. v. SewellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- Taylor v. DanleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Menage v. BurkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.