Draper v. Perkins
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Panola County. Hon. Sam. Powel, Judge. The description is sufficient to allow proof aliunde that the three bales of cotton sued for, and no more, were raised by the grantor during the year 1877 on the Burleson or Barter plantation in Tunica County. It makes a prima fade case,'and was admissible in evidence. Kelly v. Reid, ante, 89. At most, the ambiguity was latent and explainable.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Panola County. Hon. Sam. Powel, Judge. The description is sufficient to allow proof aliunde that the three bales of cotton sued for, and no more, were raised by the grantor during the year 1877 on the Burleson or Barter plantation in Tunica County. It makes a prima fade case,'and was admissible in evidence. Kelly v. Reid, ante, 89. At most, the ambiguity was latent and explainable. The deed of trust presents a patent ambiguity, and was properly excluded from the evidence. Baldwin v. McKay, 41 Miss. 858; McGuire v. Stevens, 42 Miss. 724; Brown v. Guice, 46 Miss.…
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge, C. J.
The case originated before a justice of the peace, and appears to be a proceeding by a trustee in a deed of trust to recover the value of three bales of cotton which it is alleged the defendants in error converted to their own use. The case comes here on a special bill of exceptions taken by the plaintiff in error to the ruling of the circuit judge excluding from the jury the deed of trust. The deed was excluded upon the ground that the description of the property attempted to be conveyed in it was void for uncertainty. This description is as follows: The grantor conveys “three bales of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jennings v. SparkmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- United Bank & Trust Co. v. PowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Horn v. ReitlerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- Redfield v. MontgomeryMississippi Supreme Court · 1893