Chestnut v. Harris.
Opinion delivered January 15, 1897.
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court.
Marcus S. Hawkins, Judge.
Z. T. Wood, for appellants.
The description, "NE. SE. sec. 24; township 13; range 7; No. of acres 40," is sufficient to identify the land, and give notice to the delinquent owner. Sand. & H. Dig., § 6625.
Wells & Williamson, for appellees.
The description of the lands in the assessment list, and also in the notice of sale of delinquent lands, was too vague. 59 Ark. 460; 43 N.Y. 107; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 278, 279 and 280. In order for a local usage of description to be binding on the parties, its establishment and notoriety, and the fact that it was known to parties, and that they contracted with reference thereto, must appear. Clark, Cont. 582, 583; 26 Minn. 212. Nor has chancery the power to correct a defective description in a tax deed. 84 Ala. 208; S.C. 4 South. 22.
Battle, J. An action was brought by appellant against appellees in the Drew circuit court to recover possession of the
