Jackson v. Harrison
This text of 95 S.E. 215 (Jackson v. Harrison) 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.
Opinion
A remote grantee in a warranty deed sued the heirs at law of the grantor, to recover land.1 The defendants offered an equitable plea setting up that the deed executed by their ancestor, while absolute in form, was only a security for a debt, which had been partly paid to [632]*632the first grantee, and alleging an offer to pay the balance into court, and praying that the deed be canceled, and that title be decreed in them; also a plea similar in all respects, except that the amount alleged to have been paid was uncertain, praying for an accounting, and that the land be sold, and, after payment of the balance found to be due, that the residue of the proceeds of the sale be given to the defendants. Held:
1. The first grantee was a necessary party to the grant of the relief so prayed, and there was no error in rejecting the equitable pleas. Grace v. Means, 129 Ga. 638, 643, 644 (59 S. E. 811). The ruling here made comports with the decision in Berry v. Williams, 141 Ga. 642 (4) (81 S. E. 881).
2. None of the rulings of the court were erroneous, and no verdict other than that directed could legally have been returned. The court did not err in directing the verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.E. 215, 147 Ga. 631, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-harrison-ga-1918.