Pearson v. Walker

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pearson v. Walker

128 S.E.2d 328, 218 Ga. 469, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 535

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1962

Docket21833

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 S.E.2d 328 (Pearson v. Walker) 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

Pearson v. Walker, 128 S.E.2d 328, 218 Ga. 469, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 535 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This case is in two counts for partitioning of described land (count 1) and for reformation of a deed to said property (count 2). The petition was filed in the county wherein the land lies, and none of the defendants were residents of that county. The abstract of title attached as an exhibit to the petition shows clearly that the petitioner would have no record title in the land described until and unless the prayer for reformation in count 2 is granted, thus showing that count 1 depends upon the granting of the equitable relief sought in count 2. A plea to the jurisdiction and general and special demurrers were filed by the nonresident defendant against whom substantial relief is prayed, and after a hearing the same were sustained and the petition dismissed. The exception is to this judgment. Held:

1. All equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom substantial relief is prayed. Code Ann. § 2-4903 (Const. of 1945); Cooper v. Oglethorpe Savings &c. Co., 147 Ga. 570 (3) (94 SE 1006).

2. In an action to reform a deed all parties to said instrument are necessary and proper parties. Reeves v. Tarnok, 161 Ga. 838 (131 SE 891); Hazelrigs v. Butler, 204 Ga. 98 (1) (48 SE2d 727); Sowell v. Sowell, 212 Ga. 351, 356 (92 SE2d 524), and cases cited therein.

3. Where, as here, the other defendants are not interested in the equity features of the case and the action for partitioning depends upon the granting of the equitable relief since the abstract attached thereto shows title at present to be in another and not the petitioner, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrers and plea, and in dismissing the petition, particularly where the grantor in the deed sought to be reformed was not named as a party defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This case is in two counts for partitioning of described land (count 1) and for reformation of a deed to said property (count 2). The petition was filed in the county wherein the land lies, and none of the defendants were residents of that county. The abstract of title attached as an exhibit to the petition shows clearly that the petitioner would have no record title in the land described until and unless the prayer for reformation in count 2 is granted, thus showing that count 1 depends upon the granting of the equitable relief sought in count 2. A plea to the jurisdiction and general and special demurrers were filed by the nonresident defendant against whom substantial relief is prayed, and after a hearing the same were sustained and the petition dismissed. The exception is to this judgment. Held:

1. All equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom substantial relief is prayed. Code Ann. § 2-4903 (Const. of 1945); Cooper v. Oglethorpe Savings &c. Co., 147 Ga. 570 (3) (94 SE 1006).

2. In an action to reform a deed all parties to said instrument are necessary and proper parties. Reeves v. Tarnok, 161 Ga. 838 (131 SE 891); Hazelrigs v. Butler, 204 Ga. 98 (1) (48 SE2d 727); Sowell v. Sowell, 212 Ga. 351, 356 (92 SE2d 524), and cases cited therein.

3. Where, as here, the other defendants are not interested in the equity features of the case and the action for partitioning depends upon the granting of the equitable relief since the abstract attached thereto shows title at present to be in another and not the petitioner, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrers and plea, and in dismissing the petition, particularly where the grantor in the deed sought to be reformed was not named as a party defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E.2d 328, 218 Ga. 469, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-walker-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack