Jenkins v. Boone

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jenkins v. Boone

85 S.E. 1042, 144 Ga. 44, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 40

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 13, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 1042 (Jenkins v. Boone) 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

Jenkins v. Boone, 85 S.E. 1042, 144 Ga. 44, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 40 (Ga. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. It was error to admit' in evidence a deed purporting to be executed by a corporation, signed with the name of the corporation “per R. C. Morgan, Secretary and Treasurer,” where no seal was attached, and no evidence that authority had been conferred upon the officer executing the deed to perform such an act, and where there was no evidence to bring the case within the ruling made in the ease of Garmany v. Lawton, 124 Ga. 876 (53 S. E. 669, 110 Am. St. R. 207). As set out in the brief of evidence, the deed claimed to have been executed in the name of the common grantor to the defendant was signed in the name of the grantor company by its secretary and treasurer “without the corporate seal;” nor does it appear that there was a seal of any sort. While another portion of the record indicates that some character of seal was attached, the brief of evidence will control as to what was introduced.

2. Under the ruling above made, if the deed under which the defendant claimed was excluded from evidence, there would be nothing to show that he had any conveyance from the alleged common' grantor. Accordingly, charges dealing with the question óf competition between this deed and that under which the plaintiff claimed, and with the question of actual and constructive notice to the defendant, were affected by the error above pointed out.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, J.

1. It was error to admit' in evidence a deed purporting to be executed by a corporation, signed with the name of the corporation “per R. C. Morgan, Secretary and Treasurer,” where no seal was attached, and no evidence that authority had been conferred upon the officer executing the deed to perform such an act, and where there was no evidence to bring the case within the ruling made in the ease of Garmany v. Lawton, 124 Ga. 876 (53 S. E. 669, 110 Am. St. R. 207). As set out in the brief of evidence, the deed claimed to have been executed in the name of the common grantor to the defendant was signed in the name of the grantor company by its secretary and treasurer “without the corporate seal;” nor does it appear that there was a seal of any sort. While another portion of the record indicates that some character of seal was attached, the brief of evidence will control as to what was introduced.

2. Under the ruling above made, if the deed under which the defendant claimed was excluded from evidence, there would be nothing to show that he had any conveyance from the alleged common' grantor. Accordingly, charges dealing with the question óf competition between this deed and that under which the plaintiff claimed, and with the question of actual and constructive notice to the defendant, were affected by the error above pointed out.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 1042, 144 Ga. 44, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-boone-ga-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack