Goodbar & Co. v. Dunn

Citations

• 61 Miss. 618

Syllabus

<p>1.Deed. Sufficient description.</p> <p>A deed describing the land conveyed as two hundred and twenty-two and one-half acres off the south and west part of the south half of section 24, T 1, E 7 west is not void for uncertainty. McOready v. Langsdale, 58 Miss. 879 ; Enochs v. Miller, 60 Miss. 19.</p> <p>2.Same. Mistake. Right of grantee to correct.</p> <p>Where there is a mistake in the description of land so that all the land intended to be conveyed is not included in the description the grantee is entitled to correct the deed as against the grantor and those claiming under him having knowledge of the mistake.</p> <p>3. Same. Mistake. Encumbrancers without notice.</p> <p>A mistake in the description of land conveyed in a deed cannot be corrected as against a person who without knowledge of the mistake lias acquired a lien upon the land by legal proceeding. Nugent v. Priebatch, ante.</p> <p>4. Priority oe Lien. Defective description. 'Appropriation of the fund. Case in judgment.</p> <p>D has a first mortgage on certain lands void for uncertainty as to G. as to part of the land, but good as to L., who had notice of the mistake, while L. has a second mortgage which sufficiently describes the land and, which is prior to G. who has attached. PLeld, that the third encumbrancer (G.) is entitled to nothing until the second (L.) is paid, and the second lias no right to any of the fund until an amount equal to the first mortgage (D.) has been taken therefrom, and the first mortgage Should not be allowed to charge against the second any sum which by reason of his ladies lias been appropriated to the third encumbrancer.</p> <p>5.Supreme Court. Practice. Affirmance where right result was reached.</p> <p>Where the decree of the court below is wrong in principle, but where the right result is reached, and to remand the case would only result in further accumulation of costs, the decree will be affirmed in the supreme court.</p>