Case ID: scl_31/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Curia, per Wardlaw, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harriet Bratton and others vs. James Garrison.
    Trespass to try titles. The land in dispute was levied on by the sheriff under a fi. fa. against J. G. the defendant in this action, and J. K. The sheriff indorsed on the fi. fa. a levy on “defendant’s land whereon he now resides,” and marked the distance ten miles. X G. was principal in the debt, and lived upon this land ten miles from the court house. J. K. was only surety, and lived much nearer to the court house than ten miles. Under the levy the land was sold and a conveyance duly executed to the plaintiffs. Held, that the description in the levy was sufficiently certain, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at York, Fall Term, 1845.
    This was an action of trespass to try titles. The land in question was, in November, 1842, levied on by the sheriff, under á fi. fa. in the case of William Ferrell vs. James Garrison and James Kuykendal. The sheriff indorsed upon the fi. fa. a levy upon “ defendant’s land whereon he now resides,” and marked the distance ten miles. The defendant, Garrison, was principal in the debt, and lived upon this land, ten miles from the court house, where he had resided for many years previous, and continued to reside until this year, when he yielded the possession to his son. Kuykendal, the other defendant in the execution, was only surety, and lived much nearer to the court house than ten miles. Under the levy, the land in question was sold, in December, 1842, to J. S. Bratton, for $200. J. S. Bratton died April, 1843, no titles having been made to him in his lifetime by the sheriff; and in February, 1844, a conveyance of the land, according to the purchase of the said J. S. Bratton, was made by the sheriff to the present plaintiffs, his heirs.
    The presiding Judge ruled that the description in the levy was sufficiently certain, and the plaintiffs had a verdict.
    The defendant appealed, on the ground that the levy was void for uncertainty.
    Thomson, for the motion.
    Williams, contra.
   Curia, per Wardlaw, J.

This court concurs in the view taken on the circuit. Motion dismissed.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Frost, JJ. concurred.