Lunsford v. Armour
This text of 194 Ga. 53 (Lunsford v. Armour) 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.
Opinion
1. If the relationship may be considered as confidential, the rule stated in Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet, 191 Ga. 821 (6) (14 S. E. 2d, 64), as to the presumption of undue influence can not be applied here, because there is no evidence showing the mental capacity of the grantee or a disparity in the mental capacity of the grantor and grantee.
2. There is no evidence showing undue influence, and no circumstances which would authorize a conclusion that either of the deeds in question was executed as the result of undue influence exerted by the grantee or some one in her behalf upon the grantor; nor would the evidence authorize a verdict finding that the deeds were without consideration. Since the evidence demanded the verdict in favor of the defendant, the alleged error in the charge will not be considered. White v. Southern [54]*54Railway Co., 123 Ga. 353 (4) (51 S. E. 411); Poole v. Atlanta Joint Stock Land Bank, 189 Ga. 59 (5 S. E. 2d, 368).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
194 Ga. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunsford-v-armour-ga-1942.