
    Connally v. Spragins.
    
      Statutory Detinue for Mule.
    
    1. JDeseriplion of property in mortgage. — “ One black inule, about eight years old,” when the words are used, without more, in describing the animal conveyed by a mortgage, are not so general and indefinite as to render the mortgage void, nor to exclude it as evidence of notice when properly recorded,
    2, Erasure or alteration in uiniing. — When a Written instrument, offered in evidence by a party claiming under it, bears on its face the marks of an erasure or alteration of the date, he may adduce evidence explanatory of such erasure or alteration, showing that it was made in good faith before or at the time the Writing was executed.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison.
    Tried before the Hon. Louis Wyeth.
    This action was brought by James R. Spragins, against Hampton Connally, to recover a mule, which was described in the original summons as “ a certain Made, one-eyed, horse mule, named Joe ”; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, on the loth November, 1875. The constable’s return,' as indorsed on the summons, was in these words: “ Executed by leved the within attachment on one bay horse mule, marked U. S.” In the Circuit Court, at the Spring term, 1876, the plaintiff filed a complaint as follows : “ The plaintiff claims of the defendant one dark colored mule, medium size, named Joe, with the value of the use or hire thereof during the detention.” The italicized words appear to have been erased, having a black line drawn across them; and beneath the complaint these words are added; “ By leave of the court, and without objection, this complaint is amended, by inserting * one black mule, about eight years old in 1872.’ ” The defendant pleaded “ non detinet, in short by consent, with leave to prove any special defense as if specially pleaded and the cause was tried on issue joined on this plea.
    On the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff offered in evidence a mortgage, under which he claimed the mule in controversy, and which was executed to him by one John Strode, dated the 9th February, 1872, attested by two witnesses, and duly admitted to record on proof by one of said witnesses. Said mortgage purports to be given to secure an indebtedness of $180, as evidenced by promissory note due and payable on the 1st October, 1872 ; and the property conveyed by it was thus described: “ Two grey mules, large size, and about seven years old, bought of said Sprágins; one black mule, say eight years old; one sorrel mule, say nine years old,” &e. “ The defendant objected to the reading of said mortgage, because the description of the property alleged to be sued for in said mortgage, to-wit, ‘ one black mule, about eight years old,’ was too general and insufficient; defendant’s counsel stating, that plaintiff did not claim that defendant had notice of said mortgage, except by its being recorded; and the defendant in open court admitted this to be true. The defendant objected to the mortgage, also, because it was upon a black mule, and the complaint was for a dark-colored mule, and because the evidence was variant from the pleadings. The court overruled the first objection, and sustained the second and third, but allowed the defendant to amend the complaint, by inserting the words ‘one black mule, about eight years old ’; and the defendant excepted to the overruling of said first objection. The plaintiff, after amending his complaint, again offered said mortgage in evidence, and the defendant objected to said mortgage being used as evidence; which objection the court overruled, and the defendant excepted. The defendant’s counsel having cross-examined said James R. Spragins, who was a witness for himself, and had testified that he was a merchant, doing business, selling goods, and taking mortgages as security, #n ■reference to an erasure in said mortgage of the words ‘ February,’ ‘ October,’ ‘ one,’ as shown in said mortgage, which is sent up with the record by order of the court ; the plaintiff was allowed, against the objection of the defendant, to testify that it was his custom or habit to write mortgages from customers to himself, leaving the dates blank, and afterwards, when the intended mortgagor came in to execute the mortgage, to fill' up the blank. The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, but the court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to so testify; to which the defendant excepted. This was all 'the evidence relating to these questions.”
    The rulings of the court to which exceptions were thus reserved, are now assigned as error.
    Walker & Shelby, for appellant.
    
      
      The mortgage is not attached'to the transcript, and' it has not come into the hands of the reporter.
    
   SOMERYILLE, J.

The description of the animal sued for, as ‘one black mule about eight years old,’ is not so general or indefinite as to avoid the mortgage, or authorize its exclusion from evidence. Such a general description may be rendered more certain when “ read in the light of circumstances surrounding the parties,” at the time the instrument was executed. And it was sufficient, when recorded, to excite the inquiry of strangers dealing with the mortgagor,’ and thus charge them with notice.—Ellis v. Martin, 60 Ala. 394.

The evidence, explanatory of the alteration of the date of the mortgage, tended tó show that it was both authorized, and made bona fide ; and hence it was admissible. — 1 Greenl. Ev. § 564; 1 Whart. Law Ev. § 622.

Affirmed.  