Burns v. Washington

Supreme Court of Georgia

Burns v. Washington

99 S.E. 115, 149 Ga. 42, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 109

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1919

DocketNo. 1104

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 115 (Burns v. Washington) 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

Burns v. Washington, 99 S.E. 115, 149 Ga. 42, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 109 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The plaintiff brought her petition to have a warranty deed which she executed on September 15, 1915, to one Willis Washington, declared to be a security deed. She had been requested by Washington, who was her uncle, to convey the property to one McAuliffe to secure him in the payment of the sum of $350 which Washington had previously borrowed from McAuliffe. Petitioner learned for the first time, in April, 1917, after the death of Willis Washington, that the paper which she had signed was drawn as a deed naming Willis Washington as grantee. Washington conveyed by á security deed to M. J. Mc-Auliffe to secure the payment of the $350 previously borrowed. Mc-Auliffe executed a bond for title to Willis Washington, who transferred the bond to Martha Washington, the defendant,' on March 21, 1917. Martha Washington delivered up the bond for title and paid the $350, and Margaret McAuliffe, as executrix of M. J. McAuliffe, thereupon conveyed the property to the defendant. The property is alleged to be worth $2,000. Plaintiff received no part of the $350 borrowed from McAuliffe. She tenders to Martha Washington the sum of $350 to cancel the indebtedness to McAuliffe. She alleges that the possession of the property by Willis Washington after his marriage was not in his own right but in that of the plaintiff. Held, that the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition. It is not alleged that the petitioner could not read, or that any fraud was practiced which excused her from reading the instrument which she signed; and [43]*43she is net entitled to a decree changing the character of the absolute deed which she executed so as to make it a mere security deed.

No. 1104. April 16, 1919.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Hammond. Bichmond superior court. July 15, 1918.

W. H. Fleming, for plaintiff. Barrett & Hull, for defendant.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

The plaintiff brought her petition to have a warranty deed which she executed on September 15, 1915, to one Willis Washington, declared to be a security deed. She had been requested by Washington, who was her uncle, to convey the property to one McAuliffe to secure him in the payment of the sum of $350 which Washington had previously borrowed from McAuliffe. Petitioner learned for the first time, in April, 1917, after the death of Willis Washington, that the paper which she had signed was drawn as a deed naming Willis Washington as grantee. Washington conveyed by á security deed to M. J. Mc-Auliffe to secure the payment of the $350 previously borrowed. Mc-Auliffe executed a bond for title to Willis Washington, who transferred the bond to Martha Washington, the defendant,' on March 21, 1917. Martha Washington delivered up the bond for title and paid the $350, and Margaret McAuliffe, as executrix of M. J. McAuliffe, thereupon conveyed the property to the defendant. The property is alleged to be worth $2,000. Plaintiff received no part of the $350 borrowed from McAuliffe. She tenders to Martha Washington the sum of $350 to cancel the indebtedness to McAuliffe. She alleges that the possession of the property by Willis Washington after his marriage was not in his own right but in that of the plaintiff. Held, that the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition. It is not alleged that the petitioner could not read, or that any fraud was practiced which excused her from reading the instrument which she signed; and [43]*43she is net entitled to a decree changing the character of the absolute deed which she executed so as to make it a mere security deed.

No. 1104. April 16, 1919.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Hammond. Bichmond superior court. July 15, 1918.

W. H. Fleming, for plaintiff. Barrett & Hull, for defendant.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 115, 149 Ga. 42, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-washington-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack