Buck v. Kitchens

Supreme Court of Georgia

Buck v. Kitchens

118 S.E. 51, 155 Ga. 721, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 156

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1923

DocketNos. 3462, 3516

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 S.E. 51 (Buck v. Kitchens) 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

Buck v. Kitchens, 118 S.E. 51, 155 Ga. 721, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 156 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiul, J.

1. “ The statute provides that a registered deed shall be received in evidence without further proof, unless the maker or one of his heirs or the opposite party will file an affidavit of forgery. Prima facie any alteration which appears in a registered deed will be presumed to have' been made by the parties at or before the time of the execution of the deed. In. the absence of an affidavit of forgery, such registered deed is admissible in evidence without explanation of the alteration.” Gilmer v. Harrison, 146 Ga. 721 (2) (92 S. E. 67); Colins v. Boring, 96 Ga. 360 (3) (23 S. E. 401); Civil Code (1910), § 4210. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the registered deeds in this ease, over the objection that they had been altered since their execution, as appeared from certified copies of the originals, which were subsequently also admitted in evidence.

2. The evidence in this ease did not demand a finding for the defendant; and therefore the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant for the premises sued for. Civil Code (1910), § 5926.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hiul, J.

1. “ The statute provides that a registered deed shall be received in evidence without further proof, unless the maker or one of his heirs or the opposite party will file an affidavit of forgery. Prima facie any alteration which appears in a registered deed will be presumed to have' been made by the parties at or before the time of the execution of the deed. In. the absence of an affidavit of forgery, such registered deed is admissible in evidence without explanation of the alteration.” Gilmer v. Harrison, 146 Ga. 721 (2) (92 S. E. 67); Colins v. Boring, 96 Ga. 360 (3) (23 S. E. 401); Civil Code (1910), § 4210. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the registered deeds in this ease, over the objection that they had been altered since their execution, as appeared from certified copies of the originals, which were subsequently also admitted in evidence.

2. The evidence in this ease did not demand a finding for the defendant; and therefore the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant for the premises sued for. Civil Code (1910), § 5926.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 51, 155 Ga. 721, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buck-v-kitchens-ga-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack