Fulmore v. Macon Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

191 Ga. 151
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 14, 1940
DocketNo. 13340
StatusPublished

This text of 191 Ga. 151 (Fulmore v. Macon Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n) 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
Fulmore v. Macon Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 191 Ga. 151 (Ga. 1940).

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

1. “Possession of land is notice of whatever right or title the occupant has.” Code, § 85-408.

2. “Notice sufficient to excite attention and put a party on inquiry shall be notice of everything to which it is afterwards found such inquiry might have led. Ignorance of a fact, due to negligence, shall be equivalent to knowledge, in fixing the rights of parties.” Code, § 37-116.

3. The allegations of the petition were sufficient to show that the defendant loan association had notice of the plaintiff’s equity in the land at and before the time the association took its security deed from another person, and that such security deed is subject to cancellation as between the plaintiff and the association, whether or not it might still be treated as valid against the grantor to the extent of the latter’s interest. Simpson v. Ray, 180 Ga. 395 178 S. E. 726); Chandler v. Georgia Chemical Works, 182 Ga. 419 (185 S. E. 787, 105 A. L. R. 837); Dyal v. McLean, 188 Ga. 229 (3 S. E. 2d, 571).

4. Prom the allegations of the petition it does not appear that the association is entitled to any equitable right, as against the plaintiff, to which he should give effect; and consequently the rule that he who would have equity must do equity is inapplicable. Code, § 37-104; DeVaughn v. Griffith, 149 Ga. 697 (2), 698 (101 S. E. 794); Information Buying Co. v. Miller, 173 Ga. 786 (2) (161 S. E. 617). The case differs on its facts from Barton v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 187 Ga. 700 (2 S. E. 2d, 62), in which the petition affirmatively showed that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant.

5. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action as to the loan association.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Walter DeFore and James C. Estes, for plaintiff. Jones, Jones & Sparks and Turpin & Lane, for defendants.

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

Related

DeVaughn v. Griffith
101 S.E. 794 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Information Buying Co. v. Miller
161 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Simpson v. Ray
178 S.E. 726 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Chandler v. Georgia Chemical Works
185 S.E. 787 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Harton v. Federal Land Bank
2 S.E.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Dyal v. McLean
3 S.E.2d 571 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 Ga. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulmore-v-macon-federal-savings-loan-assn-ga-1940.