Knowles v. Knowles

Supreme Court of Georgia

Knowles v. Knowles

91 S.E. 776, 146 Ga. 507, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 367

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 776 (Knowles v. Knowles) 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

Knowles v. Knowles, 91 S.E. 776, 146 Ga. 507, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 367 (Ga. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The exception to the judgment under review is limited to so much thereof as vacates the confirmation of the sale of the land to Mrs. Waller, and our ruling will be confined to that question. The case began as a statutory proceeding to partition land between common owners, by virtue of the Civil Code (1910), §§ 5358 et seq. A sale of the land was authorized by the court, and the property offered for sale by the commissioners was bid off by the attorney of one of the applicants. The statute (§ 5366) directs that commissioners conducting the sale shall return their proceeding to the same term of the court ordering such sale, if then in session; otherwise to the next term. The statute provides for a confirmation of the sale before it becomes binding and effective. Oswald v. Johnson, 140 Ga. 62 (78 S. E. 333, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1). An order was taken confirming this sale, but in the equitable intervention filed in the case its vacation is prayed on the grounds, that the parties had no actual notice of any application for the confirmation, that the land as actually sold was less in quantity and did not comport in description with the land sought to be partitioned as described in the order, that a prior sale had been ignored by the commissioners, that the commissioners and interested parties had waited for two years before' offering the property for resale at the risk of this purchaser, and that it appeared at the last effort to sell the land that one half of it was encumbered, etc. In view of these considerations, we do not think that the court abused his discretion in setting aside the order confirming the sale. The case had assumed such complications that it is decidedly to the best interests of all parties concerned that a future sale for the division of the property should not be involved with the intricacies in which the case seems to have become entangled.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Evans, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The exception to the judgment under review is limited to so much thereof as vacates the confirmation of the sale of the land to Mrs. Waller, and our ruling will be confined to that question. The case began as a statutory proceeding to partition land between common owners, by virtue of the Civil Code (1910), §§ 5358 et seq. A sale of the land was authorized by the court, and the property offered for sale by the commissioners was bid off by the attorney of one of the applicants. The statute (§ 5366) directs that commissioners conducting the sale shall return their proceeding to the same term of the court ordering such sale, if then in session; otherwise to the next term. The statute provides for a confirmation of the sale before it becomes binding and effective. Oswald v. Johnson, 140 Ga. 62 (78 S. E. 333, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1). An order was taken confirming this sale, but in the equitable intervention filed in the case its vacation is prayed on the grounds, that the parties had no actual notice of any application for the confirmation, that the land as actually sold was less in quantity and did not comport in description with the land sought to be partitioned as described in the order, that a prior sale had been ignored by the commissioners, that the commissioners and interested parties had waited for two years before' offering the property for resale at the risk of this purchaser, and that it appeared at the last effort to sell the land that one half of it was encumbered, etc. In view of these considerations, we do not think that the court abused his discretion in setting aside the order confirming the sale. The case had assumed such complications that it is decidedly to the best interests of all parties concerned that a future sale for the division of the property should not be involved with the intricacies in which the case seems to have become entangled.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 776, 146 Ga. 507, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knowles-v-knowles-ga-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack