Haygood v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Georgia

Haygood v. Duncan

55 S.E.2d 220, 205 Ga. 818, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 593

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1949

Docket16749.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 220 (Haygood v. Duncan) 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

Haygood v. Duncan, 55 S.E.2d 220, 205 Ga. 818, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 593 (Ga. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

This is the second appearance of the present case in this court. See Haygood v. Duncan, 204 Ga. 540 (50 S. E. 2d, 214). The exception is to a judgment overruling the motion for new trial, containing the usual general grounds and one amended ground assigning error upon the direction of a verdict on the ground that “there were questions of fact to be submitted to the jury as to the ownership of the option.” Held:

In neither of the conveyances from White et al. to Haygood was the “option” referred to, or specifically conveyed. Haygood’s claim of ownership of the “option” therefore rests solely upon the theory that the “option” is a covenant running with the land. Determination of the question as to whether or not the “option” was a covenant running with the land was a question of law for the court. There were no issues of fact for determination by the jury on this law question. “The court was authorized to direct a verdict, as only issues of law were involved; and as no exception is taken to the correctness of the ruling of the court upon the issues of law, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.” Dale v. Kellett-McCord Co., 169 Ga. 28 (149 S. E. 561). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Head, Justice.

This is the second appearance of the present case in this court. See Haygood v. Duncan, 204 Ga. 540 (50 S. E. 2d, 214). The exception is to a judgment overruling the motion for new trial, containing the usual general grounds and one amended ground assigning error upon the direction of a verdict on the ground that “there were questions of fact to be submitted to the jury as to the ownership of the option.” Held:

In neither of the conveyances from White et al. to Haygood was the “option” referred to, or specifically conveyed. Haygood’s claim of ownership of the “option” therefore rests solely upon the theory that the “option” is a covenant running with the land. Determination of the question as to whether or not the “option” was a covenant running with the land was a question of law for the court. There were no issues of fact for determination by the jury on this law question. “The court was authorized to direct a verdict, as only issues of law were involved; and as no exception is taken to the correctness of the ruling of the court upon the issues of law, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.” Dale v. Kellett-McCord Co., 169 Ga. 28 (149 S. E. 561). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E.2d 220, 205 Ga. 818, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haygood-v-duncan-ga-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack