Williams v. Baynes

10 S.E. 541, 84 Ga. 116
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 13, 1889·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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] previous 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

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

10 S.E. 541 (Williams v. Baynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)