Newton v. Bowen

Supreme Court of Georgia

Newton v. Bowen

91 S.E. 684, 146 Ga. 524, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 372

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 684 (Newton v. Bowen) 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

Newton v. Bowen, 91 S.E. 684, 146 Ga. 524, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 372 (Ga. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, O. J.

1. “The maker of promissory notes given for the purchase of land of which such maker holds undisturbed possession under a bond from the vendor, conditioned to make to the former a good and suffi•cient title to. the land upon payment of the notes, can neither voluntarily rescind the contract of purchase nor defeat the collection of the notes, upon the ground that the vendor has not in fact a good title to the land in question, without showing clearly that there is a paramount outstanding title against the vendor, and also proving fraud upon his part, or that he is insolvent, or a non-resident, or else proving other facts which would authorize equitable interference with the carrying out of the contract as made.” Black v. Walker, 98 Ga. 31 (26 S. E. 477). This ruling has been frequently followed by this court, including, among others, the late case of Henderson v. Fields, 143 Ga. 547 (85 S. E. 741).

2. Applying the principle announced in the preceding note, the petition as originally drafted failed to set out a cause of action; and the proffered amendment, if allowed, would not have cured its fatal defects. Accordingly, it was not error to reject the offered amendment and to dismiss the case on general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

'All the Justices concur.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Sheppard. Effingham superior court. October 18, 1915.

Paul E. Seabrook; for plaintiff. II. B. Strange, for defendants.

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

Fish, O. J.

1. “The maker of promissory notes given for the purchase of land of which such maker holds undisturbed possession under a bond from the vendor, conditioned to make to the former a good and suffi•cient title to. the land upon payment of the notes, can neither voluntarily rescind the contract of purchase nor defeat the collection of the notes, upon the ground that the vendor has not in fact a good title to the land in question, without showing clearly that there is a paramount outstanding title against the vendor, and also proving fraud upon his part, or that he is insolvent, or a non-resident, or else proving other facts which would authorize equitable interference with the carrying out of the contract as made.” Black v. Walker, 98 Ga. 31 (26 S. E. 477). This ruling has been frequently followed by this court, including, among others, the late case of Henderson v. Fields, 143 Ga. 547 (85 S. E. 741).

2. Applying the principle announced in the preceding note, the petition as originally drafted failed to set out a cause of action; and the proffered amendment, if allowed, would not have cured its fatal defects. Accordingly, it was not error to reject the offered amendment and to dismiss the case on general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

'All the Justices concur.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Sheppard. Effingham superior court. October 18, 1915.

Paul E. Seabrook; for plaintiff. II. B. Strange, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 684, 146 Ga. 524, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-bowen-ga-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack