
    Williams v. Baynes.
    Levy upon a general or undefined interest in land, and sale and conveyance accordingly, will pass nothing, the levy being void for uncertainty.
    Siaoioxs, J., not presiding, because of sickness.
    December 13, 1889.
    Levy and sale. Deeds. Evidence. Title. Before Judge Milner. Murray superior court. February term, 1889.
    Bill for partition. The complainant introduced a deed from the sheriff, described in the decision. It recited levy and sale under execution, and was objected to because not accompanied by any execution, and because the levy recited was void for uncertainty. The loss of the execution was proved; and the objections were overruled. The defendant excepted.
    R. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiff in error.
    Jones & Martin, contra.
    
   Bleckley, Chief Justice.

According to the sheriff’s deed (which is now the best evidence of the terms of the levy, the fi. fa. being lost), the levy was upon “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams in the lot of land in question. This levy, whether tested by the code, or by the law previous to the code, was void for uncertainty. What “a certain, and all of the interest,” of James Williams was, the terms of the levy afford no indication whatever. Whether it was a half, a fourth, a sixth or a twelfth, or what it was, no one could tell. Code, §3640. Whatley v. Newsom, 10 Ga. 74. The court erred in holding that the sheriff’s deed conveyed anything, and in giving judgment accordingly. Judgment reversed.  