McRory v. Sykes

Supreme Court of Georgia

McRory v. Sykes

20 Ga. 571

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 15, 1856

DocketNo. 102

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 Ga. 571 (McRory v. Sykes) 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

McRory v. Sykes, 20 Ga. 571 (Ga. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] In Walker vs. Wells, (17 Ga. Rep. 547,) this Court intimated pretty strongly that a mistake in a grant could not be corrected in this State either by scire facias or bill. We have heard nothing to change that opinion.

[572]*572Whether it could be done by a proceeding in the name of the Governor upon the relation of the party, we will not undertake to say. Unforeseen difficulties might occur in the pursuit of this remedy. Legislation is needed either in the shape of the North Carolina Statute (cited in 17th Gteorgia) or by authorizing a suit or proceeding to be prosecuted in the name of the State at the instance of the party aggrieved.

It is suggested that the North Carolina remedy by scire facias, will not reach the case, inasmuch as it extends only to defects in the body of the grant or apparent upon its face. It was the remedy prescribed to vacate grants fraudulently drawn. And there the fraud was wholly outside of the grant.

Rut in my judgment, whichsoever way the party may turn in this case, he is environed with one difficulty from which he will find it difficult to extricate himself. If Sykes be a Iona fide purchaser, can the Legislature, or the Courts, or any other tribunal rectify this grant so as to make it available against him ? If he had not the means of knowing the mistake, can he be made to suffer by its correction ?

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] In Walker vs. Wells, (17 Ga. Rep. 547,) this Court intimated pretty strongly that a mistake in a grant could not be corrected in this State either by scire facias or bill. We have heard nothing to change that opinion.

[572]*572Whether it could be done by a proceeding in the name of the Governor upon the relation of the party, we will not undertake to say. Unforeseen difficulties might occur in the pursuit of this remedy. Legislation is needed either in the shape of the North Carolina Statute (cited in 17th Gteorgia) or by authorizing a suit or proceeding to be prosecuted in the name of the State at the instance of the party aggrieved.

It is suggested that the North Carolina remedy by scire facias, will not reach the case, inasmuch as it extends only to defects in the body of the grant or apparent upon its face. It was the remedy prescribed to vacate grants fraudulently drawn. And there the fraud was wholly outside of the grant.

Rut in my judgment, whichsoever way the party may turn in this case, he is environed with one difficulty from which he will find it difficult to extricate himself. If Sykes be a Iona fide purchaser, can the Legislature, or the Courts, or any other tribunal rectify this grant so as to make it available against him ? If he had not the means of knowing the mistake, can he be made to suffer by its correction ?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ga. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrory-v-sykes-ga-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack