Flagg v. Hedrick
This text of 108 S.E.2d 703 (Flagg v. Hedrick) 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.
Opinion
The undisputed evidence disclosing that the sale under the power contained in the security deed was held on the first Tuesday in January after proper advertisement, and that the mistakes in the dates of the deed which is sought to be reformed in the cross-action were the result of typographical errors overlooked by the parties, the court did not err in ordering reformation of the deed, as prayed in the cross-action, and in denying the prayers for cancellation. See Code §§ 37-205, 37-212, 37-215; W. P. Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Echols, 200 Ga. 284 (36 S. E. 2d 762); Mulkey v. Spicer, 202 Ga. 592 (43 S. E. 2d 661). The court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
108 S.E.2d 703, 215 Ga. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-v-hedrick-ga-1959.