Evans v. Pennington

179 S.E. 123, 180 Ga. 488, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 453
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1935
DocketNo. 10609
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 123 (Evans v. Pennington) 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
Evans v. Pennington, 179 S.E. 123, 180 Ga. 488, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 453 (Ga. 1935).

Opinion

Gilbert, Justice.

1. All express trusts shall be created and declared in writing. Code of 1933, § 108-105. Therefore all of the petition seeking a recovery on an alleged express trust was properly stricken on demurrer.

2. The petition alleged the making of a promissory note as a basis for recovery, but failed to allege whether it was executed under seal and when it became due. The defendant filed a special demurrer calling- for that information, and there was no amendment to meet that defect. Accordingly, the proper inference was that the note was not executed under seal, and that it was due when executed. More than six years having elapsed between the execution and maturity of the note and the date the suit was filed, the demurrer on the ground that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations was properly sustained.

3. -The portion of the petition which alleged that an implied trust was created between the mother and the father for the benefit of the petitioners was likewise properly stricken on demurrer, the alleged implied trust being barred by the statute of limitations, the mother having' died July 27, 1915 (Code of 1933, § 3-709), and it not being alleged that any of the plaintiff beneficiaries were then minors; nor does the petition show that petitioners belong to any class for the benefit of whom a trust may be created. Code of 1933, § 108-114. Garner v. Lankford, 147 Ga. 235 (2) (93 S. E. 411).

4. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Josephine W. McDonald, for plaintiffs. Boy V. Harris, for defendant.

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

Related

Jones v. Jones
26 S.E.2d 602 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Pittman v. Pittman
26 S.E.2d 764 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.E. 123, 180 Ga. 488, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-pennington-ga-1935.