Williams v. Baynes

10 S.E. 541, 84 Ga. 116
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 13, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 541 (Williams v. Baynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Baynes, 10 S.E. 541, 84 Ga. 116 (Ga. 1889).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

According to the sheriff’s deed (which is now the best evidence of the terms of the levy, the fi. fa. being lost), the levy was upon “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams in the lot of land in question. This levy, whether tested by the code, or by the law [117]*117previous to the code, was void for uncertainty. What “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams was, the terms of the levy afford no indication whatever. Whether it was a half, a fourth, a sixth or a twelfth, or what it was, no one could tell. Code, §3640. Whatley v. Newsom, 10 Ga. 74. The court erred in holding that the sheriff’s deed conveyed anything, and in giving judgment accordingly. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Harden v. Bell
95 S.E.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Clark v. C. T. H. Corp.
184 S.E. 592 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Torbit v. Jones
89 S.E. 696 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Bird v. Burgsteiner
28 S.E. 219 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Smith v. Crosby
23 S.W. 10 (Texas Supreme Court, 1893)
Smith v. Crosby
22 S.W. 1042 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 S.E. 541, 84 Ga. 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-baynes-ga-1889.