56 Fla. 559 | Fla. | 1908
The plaintiffs in error, as plaintiffs, sued the defendants in error, as defendants, for the value of three bales of cotton, which it was claimed were covered by a mortgage crop lien given the plaintiff by one Adams.
Upon the trial the court rejected the mortgage upon objection interposed that it did not sufficiently describe the property alleged to have been bought, and that there
We are of the opinion that the mortgage and the proffered evidence were admissible. These crop mortgages are not interests in real estate, so as to require a definite description thereof, but are chattel mortgages long in use in the cotton States at least and should not be held to too rigid construction.
The mortgage indicates everything essential to- an exact description. All the cotton, corn and other products to be grown by Adams upon his farm in Jackson county. We think it fairly inferred that the particular county is designed, seeing that it prohibits the removing of the crop from the county, and but one county had been mentioned. Westinghouse Co. v. McGraph, 131 Iowa 226, 108 N. W. Rep. 449, S. C. 117 Am. St. Rep. 421.—There is nothing indefinite or uncertain as to the
Judgment reversed.