Lindsay v. Hoke
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Benton. Tried before the Hon. Thomas A. Walker. 1. The deed to Crow & Moore is void for uncertainty.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Benton. Tried before the Hon. Thomas A. Walker. 1. The deed to Crow & Moore is void for uncertainty. Humble v. Clover, 1 Orolce, Eliz. 328; Allison v. Hampton, 11 Humphrey, 71; Revis v. Lamme & Bro., 2 Mo. 207; Hudson v. Cayle, 10 Ala. 116. 2. The title to land must be by deed or writing; hence it must all be in' writing, not part writing and the rest parol i proving the Christian names of these grantees, Crow & Moore, would be showing a title to land by parol evidence. This cannot be done. McPherson v. Waters, 16 Ala. 714. If the deed be to John Smith, and there…
1Opinion of the CourtPhelan, J.
— This was an action of trespass to try titles, brought by Hoke and others against Lindsay.
The plaintiffs, in their declaration, 'describe themselves as , follows: “JohnD. Holce, George Hoke, Daniel Hoke, Jr., and Miles W. Abernathy, co-partners, doing business under the firm, name and style of Hoke & Abernathy, Samuel P. Hudson, Courtney J. Clarke, Alfred Moore and James Crow, Edward L. Woodward and James D. Porter, plaintiffs, by attorney complain, &c.”
To establish their title to the lands in question, the plaintiffs proved and introduced a deed for the premises, made by the sheriff of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morse v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Hoffman v. PorterU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1824
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jones v. MorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Blanchard v. FloydSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890