Graves v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Graves v. Thompson

94 S.E. 833, 21 Ga. App. 544, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 399

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1918

Docket8644

StatusPublished

This text of 94 S.E. 833 (Graves v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graves v. Thompson, 94 S.E. 833, 21 Ga. App. 544, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where a person dies intestate owing a promissory note and leaving five heirs at law, and four of them convey all of the intestate’s estate to the fifth heir by a deed wherein it is recited that a “further consideration moving to this conveyance [is] the payment by [the grantee] of all the indebtedness of” the intestate, bhe payee of the note, not being a party to the deed, sustains no contractual relation to the grantee therein; and, whatever his rights against the estate may he, he can not maintain against the grantee an action upon the note. In such a case, only the grantors in the deed could maintain an action to recover the recited consideration. Williams v. Moody, 95 Ga. 10 (22 S. E. 30).

2. The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

Complaint from Lee superior court — Judge Littlejohn. November 24, 1916.

Alexander & Charles Aherman, for plaintiffs. Wallis & Fort, for defendant.

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

Luke, J.

1. Where a person dies intestate owing a promissory note and leaving five heirs at law, and four of them convey all of the intestate’s estate to the fifth heir by a deed wherein it is recited that a “further consideration moving to this conveyance [is] the payment by [the grantee] of all the indebtedness of” the intestate, bhe payee of the note, not being a party to the deed, sustains no contractual relation to the grantee therein; and, whatever his rights against the estate may he, he can not maintain against the grantee an action upon the note. In such a case, only the grantors in the deed could maintain an action to recover the recited consideration. Williams v. Moody, 95 Ga. 10 (22 S. E. 30).

2. The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

Complaint from Lee superior court — Judge Littlejohn. November 24, 1916.

Alexander & Charles Aherman, for plaintiffs. Wallis & Fort, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 833, 21 Ga. App. 544, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-thompson-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack