Grice v. Grice

Supreme Court of Georgia

Grice v. Grice

38 S.E.2d 592, 200 Ga. 766, 1946 Ga. LEXIS 338

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 4, 1946

Docket15493.

StatusPublished

This text of 38 S.E.2d 592 (Grice v. Grice) 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

Grice v. Grice, 38 S.E.2d 592, 200 Ga. 766, 1946 Ga. LEXIS 338 (Ga. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Justice.

The instant case was before this court in Grice v. Grice, 197 Ga. 686 (30 S. E. 2d, 183), where a full statement of facts appears, which will not here be stated again. There a judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed as to counts one and two of the petition. The majority of the court reversed the case as to count three, the author of this opinion dissenting, he being of the opinion that the ease should have been affirmed as to all three counts. Before the case was again tried as to count three, the plaintiff amended by praying for specific perform *767 anee and general relief. The defendant amended by alleging that the deed described in count three was delivered to him. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, based upon the general grounds, and an amendment to the motion containing four special grounds. The special grounds are all mere amplifications of the general grounds. The exception is to the judgment overruling the motion for new trial. Held:

No. 15493. June 4, 1946. S. C. Boykin and J. Lon Duckworth, for plaintiff. J. L. Smith and Willis Smith, for defendant.

Since the only issue to be determined by the jury in the trial now under review was whether or not there was a parol contemporary agreement, when the deed in question was executed, that the grantee would convey the property back to the grantor after a loan had been obtained, and the evidence was in conflict on this question, it follows that there was no error in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Wyatt, Justice.

The instant case was before this court in Grice v. Grice, 197 Ga. 686 (30 S. E. 2d, 183), where a full statement of facts appears, which will not here be stated again. There a judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed as to counts one and two of the petition. The majority of the court reversed the case as to count three, the author of this opinion dissenting, he being of the opinion that the ease should have been affirmed as to all three counts. Before the case was again tried as to count three, the plaintiff amended by praying for specific perform *767 anee and general relief. The defendant amended by alleging that the deed described in count three was delivered to him. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, based upon the general grounds, and an amendment to the motion containing four special grounds. The special grounds are all mere amplifications of the general grounds. The exception is to the judgment overruling the motion for new trial. Held:

No. 15493. June 4, 1946. S. C. Boykin and J. Lon Duckworth, for plaintiff. J. L. Smith and Willis Smith, for defendant.

Since the only issue to be determined by the jury in the trial now under review was whether or not there was a parol contemporary agreement, when the deed in question was executed, that the grantee would convey the property back to the grantor after a loan had been obtained, and the evidence was in conflict on this question, it follows that there was no error in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E.2d 592, 200 Ga. 766, 1946 Ga. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grice-v-grice-ga-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack