Hill v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. Jones

66 S.E. 1099, 7 Ga. App. 394, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 313

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1910

Docket2126

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 1099 (Hill v. Jones) 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

Hill v. Jones, 66 S.E. 1099, 7 Ga. App. 394, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The Civil Code, §2693, par. 4, requires that “any contract ■ for sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning them,” to make the obligation binding, shall be “in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some person by him lawfully authorized.”

2. A receipt alleged to have been given for- part of the purchase-price of land, which reads as follows: “Received of A. five dollars, to confirm trade for 161 acres of land purchased from B., known as Judge Hayes place,” signed by B., is not such a note or memorandum of the contract of sale as will take the ease without the statute of frauds, as to A. Smith v. Jones, 66 Ga. 338 (42 Am. R. 72) ; Turner v. Lorillard, 100 Ga. 645 (28 S. E. 383, 62 Am. St. R. 345) ; Corbin v. Durden, 126 Ga. 429 (55 S. E. 30).

3. It is only where partial payment is accompanied with possession by the vendee that a contract for the sale of land, not in writing, will amount to such part performance as will take the contract out of the statute. Civil Code, § 4037.

4. The contract for the sale of the land not being in writing or enforceable as falling within any of the exceptions to the statute of frauds, the trial court did not err in excluding all the evidence offered to show the unaccepted tender of a deed to the land and demand for the purchase-money, and in awarding a nonsuit. Graham v. Theis, 47 Ga. 479; Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819 (16 S. E. 89). Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The Civil Code, §2693, par. 4, requires that “any contract ■ for sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning them,” to make the obligation binding, shall be “in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some person by him lawfully authorized.”

2. A receipt alleged to have been given for- part of the purchase-price of land, which reads as follows: “Received of A. five dollars, to confirm trade for 161 acres of land purchased from B., known as Judge Hayes place,” signed by B., is not such a note or memorandum of the contract of sale as will take the ease without the statute of frauds, as to A. Smith v. Jones, 66 Ga. 338 (42 Am. R. 72) ; Turner v. Lorillard, 100 Ga. 645 (28 S. E. 383, 62 Am. St. R. 345) ; Corbin v. Durden, 126 Ga. 429 (55 S. E. 30).

3. It is only where partial payment is accompanied with possession by the vendee that a contract for the sale of land, not in writing, will amount to such part performance as will take the contract out of the statute. Civil Code, § 4037.

4. The contract for the sale of the land not being in writing or enforceable as falling within any of the exceptions to the statute of frauds, the trial court did not err in excluding all the evidence offered to show the unaccepted tender of a deed to the land and demand for the purchase-money, and in awarding a nonsuit. Graham v. Theis, 47 Ga. 479; Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819 (16 S. E. 89). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 1099, 7 Ga. App. 394, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-jones-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack