Smith v. Brothers

86 Miss. 241
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 86 Miss. 241 (Smith v. Brothers) 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
Smith v. Brothers, 86 Miss. 241 (Mich. 1905).

Opinion

Whittteld, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The description in the tax deed is as follows: “Home lot in lot 6, block 4, ward 1.” There may have been several “home-lots” in lot 6, and we think, under the authority of Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss., 596, the description is plainly void for patent ambiguity. The deed must stand or fall by itself. The assessment roll cannot aid the description in the deed. The doctrine of Bowers v. Andrews is still the law, as a matter of' course, notwithstanding sec. 3817 and like sections of the code of 1892. The fact that if the assessment roll furnishes some clew, which, if followed up by parol proof, would identify the-land as described on the assessment roll, does not at all affect’ the other proposition announced in Bowers v. Andrews—that a description in a tax deed will be void if the ambiguity therein is patent.

Reversed and remanded for decree in accordance with this-opinion.

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

Related

Henderson v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Simmons)
510 B.R. 76 (S.D. Mississippi, 2014)
Saxon v. Saxon
136 So. 2d 210 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1962)
Jefferson v. Walker
24 So. 2d 343 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1946)
Brown v. Womack
178 So. 785 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1938)
Carr v. Barton
162 So. 172 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1935)
Sack v. Gilmer Dry Goods Co.
115 So. 339 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Reed v. Heard
53 So. 400 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 Miss. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-brothers-miss-1905.