To support judgment in ejectment it is necessary that the description be of such character that the sheriff, unaided by that kind of evidence aliunde calling for his conclusion or discretion in the nature of a judicial act, can locate the land with the help of such existing things as recorded instruments, maps, monuments and other objects which may be located by the data furnished by the description itself. Hughes v. Allen, 229 Ala. 467, 158 So. 307; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619; Carroll v. Fausett, 206 Ala. 526, 91 So. 73; Wilder v. Campbell, 197 Ala. 179, 72 So. 385; Bradford v. Sneed, 174 Ala. 113, 56 So. 532; Griffin v. Hall, 111 Ala. 601, 20 So. 485; Goodwin v. Forman, 114 Ala. 489, 21 So. 946; Roden v. Capehart, 185 Ala. 579, 64 So. 590; Welden v. Brown, 185 Ala. 171, 64 So. 430; Martin v. Carroll, 235 Ala. 30, 177 So. 144; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Jones v. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208, 4 So. 22; Lessley v. Prater, 200 Ala. 43, 75 So. 355; Jinkins v. Noel, 3 Ste. 60; Sturdevant v. Murrell, 8 Porter (Ala.) 317; 28 C.J.S. 912, ยง 62. The judgment is void and no appeal lies therefrom. Fuller v. State, 19 Ala. App. 402, 98 So. 210. Such a judgment will be set aside as void. Benedict v. Mobile Co., 177 Ala. 52, 58 So. 306; Dean v. State, 63 Ala. 153; Camden v. Bloch, 65 Ala. 236.
The description in plaintiff's deed is sufficient. A surveyor could definitely locate the lot in question. Nolen v. Henry, 190 Ala. 540, 67 So. 500, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 792; Aiken v. McMillan, 213 Ala. 494, 106 So. 150; Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 468, 80 So. 852; Holly v. Dinkins, 202 Ala. 477, 80 So. 861; 8 R. C. L. 1075; 29 Cyc. 272. Where the description is ambiguous and explanatory evidence conflicts, it is usually for the jury to find whether the description is sufficient to embrace the tract sued for. Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619, 621. Adams Gillmore, of Grove Hill, for appellees.
Code 1923, ยง 9507; Fid. Dep. Co. v. Art Metal Const. Co., 162 Ala. 323, 50 So. 186. Where the description in a deed is ambiguous and needs oral testimony to explain it, a jury question as to whether the deed really describes the lands sought to be recovered is presented. Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619. P. A. Nash, of Oneonta, for appellee.
The repugnancy in the deed between the description as to metes and bounds and the description as to the Section and Range appears from the evidence. The rule is that where a general and particular description are both used in the same deed with reference to the same land, and the two are repugnant to each other, the particular description will control and the general will be rejected as false. Sikes v. Shows, 74 Ala. 382; Carter v. Chevalier, 108 Ala. 563, 19 So. 798; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619. It is also well understood that in ejectment, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's title.
On demurrer, all intendments are against the sufficiency of the complaint, but when the inquiry arises upon the sufficiency of the complaint to sustain the judgment, all reasonable intendments are indulged to support the judgment. Werten v. K. B. Koosa Co., 169 Ala. 258, 53 So. 98; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619. This court has said:
Black's Law Dict., (3rd Ed.), 1857; Taylor v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 256 Mo. 191, 165 S.W. 327, 331; Barnett v. Savannah Electric Co., 15 Ga. App. 270, 82 S.E. 910, 911; Gehrig v. Chicago A. R. Co., 201 Ill. App. 287, 293; Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (5th Ed.), 1164. Language in pleadings are given common or popular sense and after verdict and judgment where defect complained of was not tested by demurrer questioned language will be liberally construed in favor of the pleader. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Gilbert, 6 Ala. App. 372, 60 So. 542; Peoples Tel. Co. v. Buchanon, 37 Ala. App. 371, 68 So.2d 854; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619; 16 Ala.Dig., Pleading, 34. There is ample evidence of insurer's opportunity to settle the case or claim against appellee and also ample evidence of insurer's knowledge of the injuries received by Croft and in any event, the scintilla evidence rule prevails. Southern Ry. Co. v. Hill, Ala., 39 So. 987; Cleveland Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Southern Steam C. Cl. Co., 204 Ala. 297, 85 So. 535; Blankenship v. Van Hooser, 221 Ala. 542, 130 So. 63; 18A Ala.Dig., Trial, 139(1).
Hurst Williams, Chatom, for appellees. A description in a bill to quiet title and for injunction is good where it is capable of being made certain by looking into existing things such as recorded instruments, movements and other objects. Puryear v. Smith, 233 Ala. 505, 173 So. 17; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619. When in a conveyance of lands sufficiently identified and described there is embodied an exception from the grant of an uncertain and undefinable part of the property conveyed the exception is void for uncertainty but the grant itself is good and valid.
"To support a judgment it is necessary that the description be of such a character that the sheriff, unaided by that kind of evidence aliunde, calling for his conclusion or discretion in the nature of a judicial act, can locate the land with the help of such things as recorded instruments, maps, monuments, and other objects which may be located by the data furnished by the description itself. Hughes v. Allen, 229 Ala. 467, 158 So. 307; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619."
Code 1940, Tit. 7, ยง 1095; Brown v. State, 222 Ala. 623, 133 So. 913. The place of the alleged nuisance is not adequately described. Hughes v. Allen, 229 Ala. 467, 158 So. 307; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619; Payton v. Madison, 251 Ala. 353, 37 So.2d 588. Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
To support a judgment it is necessary that the description be of such a character that the sheriff, unaided by that kind of evidence aliunde, calling for his conclusion or discretion in the nature of a judicial act, can locate the land with the help of such things as recorded instruments, maps, monuments, and other objects which may be located by the data furnished by the description itself. Hughes v. Allen et al., 229 Ala. 467, 158 So. 307; Klepac v. Fendley, 222 Ala. 417, 132 So. 619. Recognizing that such is the rule, this court in the case of Ex parte Craig, 243 Ala. 66, 8 So.2d 441, 442, held sufficient to support a judgment the following description: "Lot 5, Block 15-2, Sherman Heights, as recorded in the Probate Office of Jefferson County, Alabama."