Williams v. Baynes
Supreme Court of Georgia
Levy and sale. Deeds. Evidence. Title. Before Judge Milner. Murray superior court. February term, 1889. Bill for partition. The complainant introduced a deed from the sheriff, described in the decision. It recited levy and sale under execution, and was objected to because not accompanied by any execution, and because the levy recited was void for uncertainty. The loss of the execution was proved; and the objections were overruled. The defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
According to the sheriff’s deed (which is now the best evidence of the terms of the levy, the fi. fa. being lost), the levy was upon “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams in the lot of land in question. This levy, whether tested by the code, or by the law *117previous to the code, was void for uncertainty. What “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams was, the terms of the levy afford no indication whatever. Whether it was a half, a fourth, a sixth or a twelfth, or what it was, no one could tell. Code, §3640. Whatley v. Newsom, 10 Ga. 74.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whatley v. Doe ex dem. NewsomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
3Cited by6 opinions
- Smith v. CrosbyTexas Supreme Court · 1893
- Clark v. C. T. H. Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Bird v. BurgsteinerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Torbit v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Smith v. CrosbyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.