Redford v. Lloyd

93 S.E. 296, 147 Ga. 145, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 90
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 10, 1917
DocketNo. 72
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 296 (Redford v. Lloyd) 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
Redford v. Lloyd, 93 S.E. 296, 147 Ga. 145, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 90 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. An equitable action against an administrator, for specific performance of a contract for sale of land, made by his intestate, is not within the provisions of the Civil Code, § 4015, exempting administrators from suits to recover on debts by the decedent for twelve months from the date of qualification of the administrator. Lanfair v. Thompson, 112 Ga. 487 (37 S. E. 717).

2. A parol agreement to devise described land, on consideration of a certain sum of money which had been left by the promisee with the promisor for safe-keeping and the value of certain services which the -promisee had rendered the promisor, is enforceable at the death of the promisor by the equitable remedy of specific performance. Bird v. Trapnell, ante, 50 (92 S. E. 872).

(a) The fact that the services were rendered in pursuance of another agreement which may have been too indefinite for enforcement, and had been rendered more than four years before the making of the last contract, would not render applicable the provisions of the Civil Code, .§ 4383, or require a different ruling, which section, is as follows: “A new promise, in order to renew a right of action already barred, or to constitute a point from which the limitation shall commence running on a right of action not yet barred, must be in writing, either in the party’s own handwriting, or subscribed by him or some one authorized, by him.”

3. It was erroneous to dismiss the petition on general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. John T. Chapman, Lee Cotton, and George H. Richter, for plaintiff. ' Anderson, Gann, Gann & Walsh, for defendants.

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

Related

Cunningham v. Estate of Cunningham
697 S.E.2d 280 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Park v. Minton
194 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1972)
Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v. Diamond
179 S.E.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Chapman v. Hamilton National Bank
179 S.E. 650 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Hardeman v. Ellis
135 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Tanner v. Hinson
118 S.E. 680 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Adder Machine Co. v. Hawes
111 S.E. 188 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 296, 147 Ga. 145, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redford-v-lloyd-ga-1917.