Brooke v. Jones & Oglesby

85 S.E. 879, 143 Ga. 684, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 576
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 10, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 879 (Brooke v. Jones & Oglesby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooke v. Jones & Oglesby, 85 S.E. 879, 143 Ga. 684, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 576 (Ga. 1915).

Opinion

Hill, J.

Where A borrows money and secures it by deed to real estate, and subsequently sells a part of the land to B, giving him bond for title, and delivers the purchase-money notes to the holder of the security deed, which notes are in excess of the debt secured by such deed, and where B sells to C a portion of the land he has purchased and gives bond for title, and the two subsequent purchasers bring a suit against A, and others, praying certain equitable relief, and a demurrer to the petition is filed, it is error, in advance of passing on the demurrer and before the issues as made by the answer of the defendants are finally determined, to order a sale of the entire tract of land and, in such order, adjudicate certain rights of one of the parties and leave open other issues made by the pleadings for the final judgment.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Demurrers and answers were filed by the defendants. The answers raise several issues of fact as to the matters alleged. For instance, George W. Brooke denies the allegations as to the purpose for which the notes of Jones & Oglesby were indorsed and turned over to him, and sets out a different agreement. He further avers, that the Lowry National Bank agreed to collect the Bell notes and to look to them for the payment of the balance due it; and it had exclusive control of the notes, but refused to make the collection. Without having passed on the demurrers, and without any final determination of the issues of fact made by the pleadings, the judge passed an order directing a sale of the entire property in a specified manner, in which decree he undertook to adjudicate certain rights of the parties with respect to certain tracts of the land. To this decree the defendants excepted. J. P. Brooke and Finley & Henson, for plaintiffs in error. John T. Norris, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Erwin v. Brooke
126 S.E. 777 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Wade v. Calhoun National Bank
89 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 879, 143 Ga. 684, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooke-v-jones-oglesby-ga-1915.