Jones v. Luffman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jones v. Luffman

98 S.E. 262, 148 Ga. 770, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 60

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1919

DocketNo. 1031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 S.E. 262 (Jones v. Luffman) 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

Jones v. Luffman, 98 S.E. 262, 148 Ga. 770, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 60 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. Where a purchaser of land took from the vendor a bond for title, and, after paying half of the purchase-price and being unable to pay the balance thereof, agreed with a third person that the latter should pay the balance due on the purchase-price, that he and the original purchaser should own the land as tenants in common, and that a deed should be taken conveying the property to them; but the third person, after payirig the remaining half of the purchase-money, had the property conveyed to a stranger and by the latter conveyed to himself (the third person), an implied trpst arose in favor of the original purchaser, who had surrendered his bond for title when he made the agreement first referred to, and he was entitled to a decree establishing his right as tenant in common and an owner of an undivided half interest in the property.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

1. Where a purchaser of land took from the vendor a bond for title, and, after paying half of the purchase-price and being unable to pay the balance thereof, agreed with a third person that the latter should pay the balance due on the purchase-price, that he and the original purchaser should own the land as tenants in common, and that a deed should be taken conveying the property to them; but the third person, after payirig the remaining half of the purchase-money, had the property conveyed to a stranger and by the latter conveyed to himself (the third person), an implied trpst arose in favor of the original purchaser, who had surrendered his bond for title when he made the agreement first referred to, and he was entitled to a decree establishing his right as tenant in common and an owner of an undivided half interest in the property.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 262, 148 Ga. 770, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-luffman-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack