Hill v. Pangle

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hill v. Pangle

154 S.E.2d 193, 223 Ga. 143, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 445

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1967

Docket23921

StatusPublished

This text of 154 S.E.2d 193 (Hill v. Pangle) 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

Hill v. Pangle, 154 S.E.2d 193, 223 Ga. 143, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 445 (Ga. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The petitioner in essence alleges that she and defendant contemplated marriage and in reliance thereon she paid $1,000 as a down payment on described realty, took possession thereof and has expended $3,000 for improvements thereon but title was taken in the defendant’s [144]*144name with the understanding that petitioner should have the beneficial use of the land after their expected marriage; that the defendant placed a mortgage thereon, and both plaintiff and defendant have been making the monthly mortgage payments in equal amounts; that all of this was done in contemplation of marriage; and that petitioner trusted the defendant. The prayer was to enjoin the defendant’s attempt to evict petitioner, which has been since he married another woman; to enjoin him from otherwise interfering with her use of the land; and to decree the legal title to be in petitioner upon her paying the defendant all sums he has advanced on the mortgage, and for general relief. The petition alleges a cause of action, and it was error to dismiss it on demurrer. Code § 108-106 (1); Berry v. Brunson, 166 Ga. 523 (143 SE 761); Lominick v. Lominick, 213 Ga. 53 (96 SE2d 587).

Argued February 13, 1967 — Decided February 23, 1967. McDonald, Longley, McDonald & McDonald, Julian M. Longley, Jr., for appellant. Mitchell & Mitchell, Erwin Mitchell, Coy H. Temples, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The petitioner in essence alleges that she and defendant contemplated marriage and in reliance thereon she paid $1,000 as a down payment on described realty, took possession thereof and has expended $3,000 for improvements thereon but title was taken in the defendant’s [144]*144name with the understanding that petitioner should have the beneficial use of the land after their expected marriage; that the defendant placed a mortgage thereon, and both plaintiff and defendant have been making the monthly mortgage payments in equal amounts; that all of this was done in contemplation of marriage; and that petitioner trusted the defendant. The prayer was to enjoin the defendant’s attempt to evict petitioner, which has been since he married another woman; to enjoin him from otherwise interfering with her use of the land; and to decree the legal title to be in petitioner upon her paying the defendant all sums he has advanced on the mortgage, and for general relief. The petition alleges a cause of action, and it was error to dismiss it on demurrer. Code § 108-106 (1); Berry v. Brunson, 166 Ga. 523 (143 SE 761); Lominick v. Lominick, 213 Ga. 53 (96 SE2d 587).

Argued February 13, 1967 — Decided February 23, 1967. McDonald, Longley, McDonald & McDonald, Julian M. Longley, Jr., for appellant. Mitchell & Mitchell, Erwin Mitchell, Coy H. Temples, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E.2d 193, 223 Ga. 143, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-pangle-ga-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack