Hutchings v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hutchings v. Merritt

141 S.E. 652, 165 Ga. 650, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 38

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1928

DocketNo. 5880

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 652 (Hutchings v. Merritt) 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

Hutchings v. Merritt, 141 S.E. 652, 165 Ga. 650, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 38 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. A plaintiff in ejectment can not engraft upon the original petition an amendment in the nature of a petition in equity, praying for a judgment declaring a deed from himself to the defendant, absolute in form, to be a security for debt only, and for an equitable accounting between the' parties, etc., without alleging that the defendant is a resident of the county in which the suit is pending or a non-resident of the State. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5527, 6540; Johnson v. Griffin, 80 Ga. 551 (7 S. E. 94) ; Clayton v. Stetson, 101 Ga. 634 (28 S. E. 983); Vizard v. Moody, 115 Ga. 491 (41 S. E. 997); Townsend v. Brinson, 117 Ga. 375 (43 S. E. 748). Powell on Actions for Land, 150, § 126.

2. Under application of the principle stated in the preceding note, the judge did not err in striking the amendment to the petition.

3. The amendment having been stricken, it was not erroneous to reject evidence offered to sustain it.

4. The defendant having shown an absolute deed to the laud from the plaintiff to the defendant, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. A plaintiff in ejectment can not engraft upon the original petition an amendment in the nature of a petition in equity, praying for a judgment declaring a deed from himself to the defendant, absolute in form, to be a security for debt only, and for an equitable accounting between the' parties, etc., without alleging that the defendant is a resident of the county in which the suit is pending or a non-resident of the State. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5527, 6540; Johnson v. Griffin, 80 Ga. 551 (7 S. E. 94) ; Clayton v. Stetson, 101 Ga. 634 (28 S. E. 983); Vizard v. Moody, 115 Ga. 491 (41 S. E. 997); Townsend v. Brinson, 117 Ga. 375 (43 S. E. 748). Powell on Actions for Land, 150, § 126.

2. Under application of the principle stated in the preceding note, the judge did not err in striking the amendment to the petition.

3. The amendment having been stricken, it was not erroneous to reject evidence offered to sustain it.

4. The defendant having shown an absolute deed to the laud from the plaintiff to the defendant, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 652, 165 Ga. 650, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchings-v-merritt-ga-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack