Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Philip D. Beall and Joe M. Coe, for Appellants;
Carter Yonge, for Appellee.
Filed: Jul. 13, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Four mortgages were made out in the name of W. J. Davis and E. P. Rose, partners under the firm name of Davis and Rose, and Lorena B. Davis, wife of the said W. J. Davis, and Carrie Rose, wife of the said E. P. Rose, as mortgagors, to The Lurton Company, as mortgagee. The execution of the mortgages was accomplished by the signature and seals of the partners as follows: "Davis Rose by E. P. Rose, Carrie Rose, W. J. Davis, Lowena B. Davis." The mortgages were on printed forms, designed to be fille
Summary: Four mortgages were made out in the name of W. J. Davis and E. P. Rose, partners under the firm name of Davis and Rose, and Lorena B. Davis, wife of the said W. J. Davis, and Carrie Rose, wife of the said E. P. Rose, as mortgagors, to The Lurton Company, as mortgagee. The execution of the mortgages was accomplished by the signature and seals of the partners as follows: "Davis Rose by E. P. Rose, Carrie Rose, W. J. Davis, Lowena B. Davis." The mortgages were on printed forms, designed to be filled..
More
I have serious doubt of the validity of the clause in the mortgage, above discussed, by reason of its vagueness and generality. At least, it seems
to me, that as to such vague and all-inclusive general clause, the rule of ejusdem generis should be strictly applied, which would limit the meaning to conform to the kind and character of things or property specifically described in the language preceding the clause, which in this case I think would lead to the same conclusion arrived at in the above opinion.
