Enochs v. Miller

60 Miss. 19
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 60 Miss. 19 (Enochs v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Enochs v. Miller, 60 Miss. 19 (Mich. 1882).

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The deed ivas not void for uncertainty. Land described as a specified number of acres of the south, or north, or east,- or west part of a particular section, or legal subdivision of a section, is perfectly well described, and there is not the slightest difficulty in laying it off, as has been at least twice decided by this court. Bowers v. Chambers, 53 Miss. 259; McCready v. Langsdale, 58 Miss. 879.

Where a sale in pais is made by a trustee under an instrument conferring a power of sale upon him under certain prescribed terms and conditions, a substantial compliance with the mode, manner, and terms prescribed is essential to pass the title, and any disregard of them in any important respect will vitiate the sale. The making of the deed is prima facie [22]*22evidence that the sale was properly made, and will throw upon him who attacks or resists it the burden of showing the contrary.

In the present case the defendants assumed, and successfully met, this burden by proving that the sale took place upon twenty-six days’ notice, instead of thirty, as was required by the deed of trust under which it was made. The court below properly held that the purchaser acquired no title. 2 Perry on Tr., sect. 602, p. 307 ; 2 Jones on Mort., sect. 1822 et seq.; Walker v. Brumgard, 13 Smed. & M. 763 ; Wightman v. Reynolds, 24 Miss. 681; Wade v. Thompson, 52 Miss. 367 ; Fitts v. Graham, 53 Miss. 307.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeLee v. Anderson
63 So. 2d 393 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1953)
Woods v. Linder
11 So. 2d 900 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)
McLendon v. McGee
198 So. 725 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1940)
Melchor v. Casey
161 So. 692 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1935)
Herod v. Robinson
115 So. 40 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Jones v. Frank
85 So. 310 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1920)
Planters Mercantile Co. v. Braxton
82 So. 323 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1919)
Diffie v. White
184 S.W. 1065 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Wilczinski v. Watson
69 So. 1009 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1915)
Robinson v. Pierce
118 Ala. 273 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1897)
Illinois Central Railroad v. LeBlanc
74 Miss. 650 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1897)
Campbell ex rel. Estate of Campbell v. Carruth
32 Fla. 264 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1893)
Stephens v. Clay
17 Colo. 489 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1892)
Goodbar & Co. v. Dunn
61 Miss. 618 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Miss. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enochs-v-miller-miss-1882.