Johnson vs. Cochran. JOHNSON S. COCHRAN.* Where the name of a person appeared as duly signed to a submission to arbitration, though he did not in fact sign it or authorize his name to be subscribed thereto, yet if he were present when the arbitration was had and the award was made, testified as a witness before the arbitrators and knew that his rights were involved, making no objection to the arbitration at the time, he is estopped from denying that he is bound by the award. (a) The court below seems to have ignored this question, and the jury were not charged upon it. The plaintiff was bound by the award, and the verdict, being contrary to the award (which is not attacked), is without evidence to support it. W. J. IVERSON and J. A. HUNT, for plaintiff in error. STEWART & DANIEL and E. F. DUPREE, contra. BLANDFORD, Justice. The question in this case is, whether the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence. There are some special grounds in the motion for a new trial which are not approved by the court, and we cannot consider them. It appears that Johnson rented certain lands to F. A. Cochran, the father of R. E. B. Cochran, the defendant in error, and of T. J. Cochran. A controversy having arisen between the Cochrans and Johnson, it was left to arbitration. The question left to the arbitrators to decide was, whether Johnson had rented the land to the father, F. A. Cochran, or to the two sons, R. E. B. and T. J. Cochran. The names of all the Cochrans, both the father and the sons, were signed to the submission *BLECKLEY, C. J., did not preside in this case, on account of indisposition. to arbitration. Brinson et ux. vs. Lassiter et al. The arbitrators decided and awarded that Johnson had rented the land to the father, and not to the sons. R. E. B. Cochran, the defendant in error here, after this award had been rendered, brought his action against Johnson to recover from Johnson for certain work which he alleged he had done on this land, and for certain corn he had advanced to Johnson, and one-fourth of the value of seven bales of cotton which had been raised upon the land by Cochran, and which had been sold by Johnson and the money therefor collected and retained by him. A verdict was had for R. E. B. Cochran for $52.50 principal, besides interest. R. E. B. Cochran testified that he had never signed the submission, but that he was present when the arbitration was had and the award was made; and that he had testified as a witness before the arbitrators, and knew that his rights were involved in that controversy. We think he is estopped, under the circumstances, from denying the correctness of that award. The court below seems to have ignored this question entirely, and . the jury were not charged on this subject at all. No instruction was given them as to whether he was bound by the award, under the circumstances of the case, or We think he was bound by it; and that award having settled the fact that Johnson had rented this land to the father, the verdict of the jury was without evidence to support it, and the court erred in not granting a new trial. not. Judgment reversed. BRINSON et ux. vs. LASSITER et al. 1. The levy of a tax execution för $3.60 on one hundred acres of land, worth $1,200, is such a fraud on the law as to render the sale void at the option of the land-owner, and a deed made in pursuance of such levy and sale is void on its face, if it show the fact of such excessive levy. Brinson et ux. vs. Lassiter et al. 2. The levy in this case was also void for want of sufficient description of the premises levied on. It described the land as "One hundred acres of land, as the property of William E. Lassiter, bounded as follows: north by Dr. Wallace, and west by the Central railroad"; there being two branches of the Central railroad in the county, and no boundaries east and west being given. (a) It is not sufficient that the purchaser knew the boundaries of the land. It should be so described that the world may know them, in order that all may knowingly bid and the land may bring the highest market price. 3. The verdict was warranted by the evidence. May 2, 1888. Tax. Executions. Levy and sale. Description. Before Judge RONEY. Burke superior court. May term, 1887. Reported in the decision. R. O. LOVETT and E. L. BRINSON, for plaintiffs in error. TUTT & LOCKHART, by ROBT. L. RODGERS, contra. SIMMONS, Justice. The record in this case shows that 100 acres of land, worth $1,200, were levied on by the sheriff of Burke county to satisfy a tax execution for $3.60, and that the land was sold to the wife of the tenant of the landlord for $35. Under the charge of the court, the jury decreed that the sale was void and should be set aside, and that the respondents should pay $300 for rent and damages for the years they had been in occupation of the land. 1. Under the facts as disclosed by this record, the sale by the sheriff was void, for two reasons. The first is, because the levy and sale made by him were excessive. The levy of a tax execution for $3.60 on 100 acres of land worth $1,200, is such a fraud on the law as to render the sale void at the option of the land-owner, and a deed made in pursuance of such levy and sale is void. Brinson et ux. vs. Lassiter et al. on its face, if it shows the fact of such excessive sale. Cooley on Taxation, 496. "A levy grossly excessive will be deemed fraudulent, and a sale thereon will be set aside; and where, on such levy, a sale of lands en masse is made, without its appearing that the land was first offered in less parcels, the inference will not arise that such was the course pursued by the officer, but rather the reverse thereof. Thus a levy of property of the value of $800 for a claim of $21 is grossly excessive and oppressive." Rorer on Judicial Sales, $711. In the case of Doane vs. Chittenden & Co., 25 Ga. 103, this court held that where two tenements on the same lot, worth each several thousand dollars, were both levied on and sold together to satisfy a tax execution of less than one hundred dollars, the sale was absolutely null and void. See also Wallace et al. vs. Atlanta Medical College, 52 Ga. 164; Parker vs. Glenn, 72 Ga. 637; Morris vs. Davis, 75 Ga. 169. 2. The levy was void because of the want of sufficient description of the premises levied on. The levy described the land as follows: "One hundred acres of land as the property of William E. Lassiter, bounded as follows: north by Dr. Wallace, and west by the Central railroad." If the sale had been legal in other respects, and the sheriff had attempted to put the purchaser in possession, it would have been impossible, under this description, for him to have done so. No boundaries of the land are mentioned south or east; and while the levy says that it is bounded west by the Central railroad, it does not say which branch thereof, there being two branches of the Central railroad in Burke county. Nor is it any reply to this objection to say that the purchaser knew the boundaries of the land. The landowner has a right to have the premises properly described in the levy and advertisement, in order that all persons may know the proper boundaries of the tract to Brinson et ux. vs. Lassiter et al. be sold, and in order that it may bring the highest market price. While the tenant of this land-owner perhaps did know the boundaries of the land, other persons who might desire to purchase did not have the same. knowledge, and might have been kept from attending the sale and bidding on the land by reason of the insufficiency of the description in the levy and advertisement. We think, therefore, that the verdict of the jury was right in setting aside this sale and decreeing a cancellation of the sheriff's deed made thereunder, and that the court was right in refusing to grant a new trial on these grounds. 3. The only other ground urged before us by the plaintiff in error was, that the verdict was wrong in finding the amount of rent and damages against Brinson and his wife. He insists that if either was liable, it was the wife; that she was the purchaser at the sale and the deed was made to her. The record discloses that while the purchase was made at the sheriff's sale for the wife, yet the husband furnished the money to his brother and instructed him to buy the land and pay this money for it, and have the deed made to his wife. The record further discloses that J. P. Brinson, the husband, was the tenant of Mrs. Lassiter, who controlled this property, and that she resided some thirty miles away, and that shortly after this sale by the sheriff, she moved to the State of South Carolina. According to her statement, she saw Brinson twice after this sale, and he gave her no notice that such a sale had taken place; nor does the record disclose that the sheriff or tax-collector either gave her notice of the sale until after the expiration of the time in which she had the right to redeem the land. After this time had expired, the sheriff notified her of a small balance which he had in his hands, arising from the sale of this land, over and above the taxes. He turned out Mrs. Lassiter's tenant and put Brinson and |