Farnell v. Brady

125 S.E. 57, 159 Ga. 209, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 411
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 21, 1924
DocketNo. 4425
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 57 (Farnell v. Brady) 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
Farnell v. Brady, 125 S.E. 57, 159 Ga. 209, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 411 (Ga. 1924).

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the general and special demurrers to the petition.

2. “He who would have equity must do equity and give effect to all equitable rights in the other party respecting the subject-matter of the suit.” • Civil Code (1910), § 4521. Accordingly, as a general rule, a [210]*210petition to a court of equity to cancel a contract representing the sale of property, where there is no return or offer to return the consideration, is demurrable. An exception to the general rule stated above is that “a party is not obliged to return that which he is entitled to retain,” as alleged in the petition in this case, to wit, that the petitioner was fraudulently induced to sell and transfer her interest in an estate to others interested therein, for a sum much less than the amount due her as one of the heirs. Treating the allegations of the petition as true for the purpose of considering the demurrer, the plaintiff is entitled to many times the amount received by her upon proper and just accounting and distribution of the. estate. Equity does not require the useless procedure upon the part of the plaintiff to return a part of her just proportion only to have it included in the larger sum due to her and which she seeks to recover. See Collier v. Collier, 137 Ca. 658 (3) (74 S. E. 275, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1110); Taylor v. Colley, 138 Ca. 41 (4) (74 S. E. 694); Mann v. Showalter, 145 Ca. 269 (3), 274 (88 S. E. 968). Judgment affirmed.

No. 4425. October 21, 1924. All the Justices concur. S. P. Cain, for plaintiffs in error. J. 11. Singletary and Ilarisfield & Conger, contra.

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

Related

STAFFORD v. GARELECK Et Al.
769 S.E.2d 169 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2015)
Corbitt v. Harris
354 S.E.2d 637 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Cowart v. Gay
157 S.E.2d 466 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Nelson v. Estill
9 S.E.2d 73 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Interstate Life & Accident Co. v. Shedrick
195 S.E. 456 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Atlanta Life Insurance v. Walker
184 S.E. 776 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Biggers v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n
176 S.E. 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Shepard v. Veal
173 S.E. 644 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Farnell v. Brady
134 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Ellis v. Ellis
130 S.E. 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 S.E. 57, 159 Ga. 209, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farnell-v-brady-ga-1924.