Legal Opinion
Blumberg v. Nathan
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided April 9, 1940No. 13165PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Justice.
The foundation of the plaintiffs’' suit is the purchase contract, which is attacked as void because the description of the property therein is too indefinite. The same rule requiring definiteness of description of land in a deed is applicable to a contract for the purchase of land. Harper v. Kellar, 110 Ga. 420 (35 S. E. 667). A description of land in a deed, in order to be valid, must identify the land or must contain a key by the use of which the description may be applied by extrinsic evidence. Possibly this idea of a “key” has been overworked, and it has certainly been…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Horton v. MurdenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Clark v. CagleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- King v. BriceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Laurens County Board of Education v. StanleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Singleton v. CloseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Hendon Properties, LLC v. Cinema Development, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2005
- Deaton v. SwansonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Smith v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
- Gainesville Midland Railroad v. TynerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
- Sturdivant v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.