Lewis v. Lewis

91 S.E.2d 336, 212 Ga. 168, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 291
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 13, 1956
Docket19171
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 91 S.E.2d 336 (Lewis v. Lewis) 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
Lewis v. Lewis, 91 S.E.2d 336, 212 Ga. 168, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 291 (Ga. 1956).

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

1. The petition and the will and deeds attached thereto as exhibits show fee-simple title in the plaintiff to the property therein described as Lot No. 7, subject to a life estate in one of the defendants to the south half of the dwelling house located thereon. One of the muniments of title relied on by the plaintiff, a copy of which is attached to the petition, is a deed executed and deliverd by five of the named defendants to the other defendant, which deed was duly recorded, whereby they conveyed to the other defendant, who was the plaintiff’s grantor, all their right, title, interest, and equity in and to said lot. The plaintiff’s petition alleging that these five named defendants and each of them “claim some right, title and interest” in and to said lot, but that for want of information the plaintiff does not know the basis or foundation of the various defendants’ claims of right, title or interest, but that by reason thereof he cannot with safety and security offer the land described as security for a loan, although he would like to do so for the purpose of making a crop, fails to state a justiciable dispute or controversy which would authorize the court to grant any relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act (Ga. L. 1945, p. 137; Code, Ann. Supp., Chapter 110-11), and the trial judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition as to these five defendants. See Georgia Marble Co. v. Tucker, 202 Ga. 390 (43 S. E. 2d 245); Sanders v. Harlem Baptist Church, 207 Ga. 7 (59 S. E. 2d 720); Sumner v. Davis, 211 Ga. 702 (88 S. E. 2d 392).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Gardner
130 S.E.2d 507 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
PENN. THRESHERMEN &C. INS. CO. v. Gardner
130 S.E.2d 507 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Moore v. Young
114 S.E.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Wright v. Kelly
95 S.E.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Liner v. City of Rossville
94 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Cox v. Pearson
92 S.E.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Zeagler v. Willis
92 S.E.2d 108 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E.2d 336, 212 Ga. 168, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lewis-ga-1956.