Blanchard v. Floyd
Supreme Court of Alabama
Statutory Action in nature of Ejectment. Appeal from the Circuit Oourt'of Lee. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael.
Read the full summary
Statutory Action in nature of Ejectment. Appeal from the Circuit Oourt'of Lee. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by T. E. Blanchard and the heirs of L. M. Burrus, deceased, against Burrell Eloyd and Jack Huguley, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; an:l was commenced on the 17th March, 1887. The facts of the case, as developed on the trial, are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: “The evidence tended to show plaintiffs’ right to recover, except in the particulars hereinafter set forth. It was proved that…
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
— It is an essential requisite to a deed of conveyance of land, that the grantee be named or so described that he may be-distinguished from other persons.
The maxim,11 Id cerium est quod oertum reddi potest,” applies in such cases.
A deed made to a partnership, described as it was in this case, as “Blanchard & Burrus,” is legal, and may be aided by parol proof, showing the individuals composing the firm. Jones v. Morris, 61 Ala. 521; Lindsay v. Hoke, 21 Ala. 542.
A conveyance of real estate to- a partnership, bjr its firm name, vests the title at law in the several partners as tenants in common,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Landford v. DunklinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Lindsay v. HokeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker v. Miller.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Schlake v. HealeyNebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Burke v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Dolores del Rosario v. Rucabado ArgumosaDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1916