Griffin v. Hall

111 Ala. 601
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 111 Ala. 601 (Griffin v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Griffin v. Hall, 111 Ala. 601 (Ala. 1895).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

This action is prosecuted by Hall and Farley as trustees to recover certain land described in the complaint as follows : “One lot upon vdiich a brick building is situated, containing two stores, on the east" side of a vacant lot in the town of Brundidge, situated in section 26, township 9, range 22, which said vacant lot extends back one hundred and five feet, and is bounded on the west by G. W. Hunter’s lot.” The complaint was demurred to for that “ the description of the land sued for is insufficient to support a judgment.” This demurrer was overruled. It should have been sustained. The suit is for a lot on which is a brick building, and not merely for so much of the lot as is covered by the building. The sheriff in attempting to execute a writ of possession describing the property as in this complaint might find the brick building with some assurance of certainty ; but we do not see how it Would be possible for him to identify the lot sued for. No dimensions are given. It may contain one acre or ten. It may be fifty or five hundred feet square. It may or may not be conterminus with the “vacant” lot as to one of it lines, but granting it is so coterminus, the other lines bounding it are entirely at large. The des[604]*604cription is neither certain in itself nor does it afford any data by reference to which it can possibly be made certain.

The deed of Foreman to Griffin was void as to these plaintiffs, not having been recorded before they acquired a lien on the land as judgment creditors of the grantor, and they having no knowledge or notice in fact, or otherwise constructively, of it. — King v. Paulk, 85 Ala. 186; Fitzgerald v. Williamson, 85 Ala. 585; Code, §§ 1810, 1811; Troy v. Walter Bros., 87 Ala. 233; Motley v. Jones, 98 Ala. 443.

The judgment must be reversed for the error committed in overruling this demurrer. The cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Horn v. Peek
20 So. 2d 234 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Ex Parte Craig
8 So. 2d 441 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Hinson v. Cook
1 So. 2d 33 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Walling v. Moss
197 So. 30 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Martin v. Carroll
177 So. 144 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Hughes v. Allen
158 So. 307 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Oxford Junction Savings Bank v. Hall
211 N.W. 389 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1926)
Parker v. Jefferson County
95 So. 364 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Little v. Thomas
85 So. 490 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Fuller v. Sockwell
84 So. 751 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Harris v. Byrd
79 So. 472 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Weidlich v. Independent Asphalt Paving Co.
162 P. 541 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Harris v. Hanchey
68 So. 276 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Collins v. Andriano
175 S.W. 194 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Jones v. Wild
65 So. 349 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Welden v. Brown
64 So. 430 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Enslen v. Thornton
62 So. 525 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Brown v. International H. Co.
60 So. 841 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Harrelson v. Harper
54 So. 517 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Lodge v. Wilkerson
51 So. 609 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 Ala. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-hall-ala-1895.