Pittman Construction Co. v. City of Marietta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pittman Construction Co. v. City of Marietta

170 S.E. 669, 177 Ga. 573, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 10, 1933

DocketNo. 9558

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 170 S.E. 669 (Pittman Construction Co. v. City of Marietta) 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

Pittman Construction Co. v. City of Marietta, 170 S.E. 669, 177 Ga. 573, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 361 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment sustaining a demurrer and dismissing a petition praying for equitable relief. The particular relief sought is recovery of $1600 paid to the City of Marietta for property sold at a tax sale, 'assessed under an act of the General Assembly (Ga. Laws 1917, pp. 757-767), and for cancellation of the marshaPs deed conveying the property to the petitioner.

1. A purchaser at a tax sale, as a general rule, does not come within the rule applicable to purchasers bona fide, but rather within the rule of caveat emptor, and is chargeable with knowledge of defects which the record discloses, notwithstanding statements of individuals. Civil Code (1910), § 6054; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.), 2945, § 1497; 4 Id. 3045, § 1553; McWhorter v. Beavers, 8 Ga. 300; Methvin v. Bexley, 18 Ga. 551; Budge v. Grand Forks, 10 L. R. A. 165; Keen v. McAfee, 116 Ga. 728 (42 S. E. 1022); Saffold v. Anderson, 162 Ga. 408 (134 S. E. 81). “Sales under tax fi. fas. shall be made under the same rules governing judicial sales.” Civil Code (1910), § 1167.

2. By the exercise of ordinary diligence the petitioner would have discovered all of the defects and irregularities before making the purchase at the tax sale, and at the sale must have known the exact frontage of the property sold.

3. The above rulings control, adversely- to the petitioner, all issues raised, including the question of cancellation of the deed.

4. The court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness,

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

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment sustaining a demurrer and dismissing a petition praying for equitable relief. The particular relief sought is recovery of $1600 paid to the City of Marietta for property sold at a tax sale, 'assessed under an act of the General Assembly (Ga. Laws 1917, pp. 757-767), and for cancellation of the marshaPs deed conveying the property to the petitioner.

1. A purchaser at a tax sale, as a general rule, does not come within the rule applicable to purchasers bona fide, but rather within the rule of caveat emptor, and is chargeable with knowledge of defects which the record discloses, notwithstanding statements of individuals. Civil Code (1910), § 6054; 3 Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.), 2945, § 1497; 4 Id. 3045, § 1553; McWhorter v. Beavers, 8 Ga. 300; Methvin v. Bexley, 18 Ga. 551; Budge v. Grand Forks, 10 L. R. A. 165; Keen v. McAfee, 116 Ga. 728 (42 S. E. 1022); Saffold v. Anderson, 162 Ga. 408 (134 S. E. 81). “Sales under tax fi. fas. shall be made under the same rules governing judicial sales.” Civil Code (1910), § 1167.

2. By the exercise of ordinary diligence the petitioner would have discovered all of the defects and irregularities before making the purchase at the tax sale, and at the sale must have known the exact frontage of the property sold.

3. The above rulings control, adversely- to the petitioner, all issues raised, including the question of cancellation of the deed.

4. The court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.E. 669, 177 Ga. 573, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-construction-co-v-city-of-marietta-ga-1933.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack