Hanie v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hanie v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co.

163 S.E. 515, 45 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 149

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1932

Docket21285

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E. 515 (Hanie v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co.) 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

Hanie v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co., 163 S.E. 515, 45 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Notwithstanding a policy of title insurance issued by a title guaranty company may, by its terms, entitle the insured to a transfer of the policy by the title company to any assignee designated by the insured, the policy does not obligate the title company to insure the title to the property at a later date. The petition, in a suit brought by the insured against the title company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by a failure of the defendant at a later [27]*27date to insure the title of the real estate covered by the policy to a prospective purchaser of the real estate, sets out no cause of action under the policy, and, in the absence of an allegation as to the existence of any contract by which the defendant was obligated to the plaintiff to insure the title to the property at a later date, the petition fails to set out a cause of action.

Decided February 23, 1932. George G. Finch, for plaintiffs. Tye, Thomson & Tye, for defendant.

2. The demurrer, was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., cmd Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Notwithstanding a policy of title insurance issued by a title guaranty company may, by its terms, entitle the insured to a transfer of the policy by the title company to any assignee designated by the insured, the policy does not obligate the title company to insure the title to the property at a later date. The petition, in a suit brought by the insured against the title company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by a failure of the defendant at a later [27]*27date to insure the title of the real estate covered by the policy to a prospective purchaser of the real estate, sets out no cause of action under the policy, and, in the absence of an allegation as to the existence of any contract by which the defendant was obligated to the plaintiff to insure the title to the property at a later date, the petition fails to set out a cause of action.

Decided February 23, 1932. George G. Finch, for plaintiffs. Tye, Thomson & Tye, for defendant.

2. The demurrer, was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., cmd Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 515, 45 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanie-v-atlanta-title-trust-co-gactapp-1932.