Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bank of Wrightsville

94 S.E. 553, 147 Ga. 442, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 251
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 13, 1917·No. No. 392·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

A mortgage contained the following description of the land on which it was intended that the instrument should be a lien: “one hundred acres of land, more or less, situated, lying, and being in the 1203d district G. M., Johnson County, Georgia, and bounded on the north by the lands of Dr. Bedingfield, 'east by Dock Price, south by other lands of J. W. Erost [the mortgagor], and west by lands of John Price,” the number of acres not being definite, but qualified by the term “more or less;” and parol evidence was admitted for the purpose of making certain the boundary described as “other lands of J. W. Frost,” the mortgagor. Held, that under the evidence the court did not err in finding that the mortgage was void for lack of sufficient description. Shackelford v. Orris, 129 Ga. 791 (59 S. E. 772), and eases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bank of Wrightsville, 94 S.E. 553, 147 Ga. 442, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 251 (Ga. 1917).

94 S.E. 553 (Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bank of Wrightsville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hamilton v. Evans
69 S.E.2d 739 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Hightower & Co. v. First National Bank
95 S.E. 993 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)