Kenney v. Higgins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kenney v. Higgins

127 S.E. 623, 33 Ga. App. 666, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 668

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1925

Docket15003

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 623 (Kenney v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenney v. Higgins, 127 S.E. 623, 33 Ga. App. 666, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. “Where a vendor contracts to sell land lor which he holds only an executory contract of purchase, and stipulates with his vendee to convey a merchantable title by a warranty deed during a specified day in the future, upon the strength of which he receives a part of the purchase-price as earnest money, which the contract provides shall be retained as a forfeiture by the vendor in case of a breach of the contract by the purchaser, and is to be returned to the . vendee if titles to the premises -are not merchantable, such vendor can not retain the earnest money after the day on which title is to pass, having himself failed to perfect his title so that he might convey to his vendee a merchantable title as provided by the contract. In the circumstances enumerated the vendee may, after the expiration of the time for making the deed, maintain an action for recovery of the earnest money without having paid or tendered payment of the balance of the purchase price.”

2. The foregoing ruling is by the Supreme Court in this case. The trial court had directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and this court reversed that judgment, holding that, “the evidence being in conflict upon material .issues, and presenting questions for determination by the jury, the court erred in directing a verdict.” The- Supreme Court, on certiorari, reversed the judgment of this' court. Higgins v. Kenney, 159 Ga. 736 (126 S. E. 827). See full opinion of that court, rendered on February 18, 1925. In obedience to the decision of the Supreme Court, the former judgment of this court (31 Ga. App. 514, 121 S. E. 841) is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. “Where a vendor contracts to sell land lor which he holds only an executory contract of purchase, and stipulates with his vendee to convey a merchantable title by a warranty deed during a specified day in the future, upon the strength of which he receives a part of the purchase-price as earnest money, which the contract provides shall be retained as a forfeiture by the vendor in case of a breach of the contract by the purchaser, and is to be returned to the . vendee if titles to the premises -are not merchantable, such vendor can not retain the earnest money after the day on which title is to pass, having himself failed to perfect his title so that he might convey to his vendee a merchantable title as provided by the contract. In the circumstances enumerated the vendee may, after the expiration of the time for making the deed, maintain an action for recovery of the earnest money without having paid or tendered payment of the balance of the purchase price.”

2. The foregoing ruling is by the Supreme Court in this case. The trial court had directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and this court reversed that judgment, holding that, “the evidence being in conflict upon material .issues, and presenting questions for determination by the jury, the court erred in directing a verdict.” The- Supreme Court, on certiorari, reversed the judgment of this' court. Higgins v. Kenney, 159 Ga. 736 (126 S. E. 827). See full opinion of that court, rendered on February 18, 1925. In obedience to the decision of the Supreme Court, the former judgment of this court (31 Ga. App. 514, 121 S. E. 841) is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 623, 33 Ga. App. 666, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-higgins-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack