Campe v. Renandine

Citations

• 64 Miss. 441

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment. Description of property. Defect in declaration covered by plea.</p> <p>R. brought an action of ejectment against G. to recover certain land, the description of the southern boundary of which, as set out in the declaration, was defective. C. in his plea denied possession of the land except a six-foot strip running between parallel lines from the eastern boundary, in describing . which hefurnished an accurate description of the southern boundary of the land sued for by the plaintiff. On the trial R. introduced a deed from C. to R., in which the land is described precisely as in the declaration. Held, that 0. by his plea admitted possession of a part of the land described in the declaration, and R., having shown by her deed title to all the land described in the declaration, was entitled to recover, the defect in her description of the southern boundary having been fully cured by the description thereof in C.’s plea.</p> <p>2. Same. Deed. Parol agreement to vary.</p> <p>In an action of ejectment the legal effect of a deed cannot be limited by showing that a certain part of the land conveyed therein was reserved to the vendor by a contemporaneous parol agreement.</p>