Skeen v. Glower

162 S.E. 917, 174 Ga. 510, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 78
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 25, 1932
DocketNo. 8419
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 917 (Skeen v. Glower) 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
Skeen v. Glower, 162 S.E. 917, 174 Ga. 510, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 78 (Ga. 1932).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. Where a purchaser of lands that are subject to the lien of a security deed previously executed by the grantor under seal, to secure his note given under seal, takes a warranty deed which recites that he as purchaser assumes the indebtedness evidenced by the note and secured by the lien, as a part of the purchase-price, such recital constituting the only evidence of the assumption of such debt, and the purchaser fails to pay off and discharge the indebtedness and lien, and is sued by his grantor for the amount paid by him in satisfaction of a deficiency judgment obtained against him by the payee and holder of the note, who has first exhausted the security by a sale of the land, the period of limitations applicable to such an action by the grantor against [511]*511the purchaser is twenty years, the covenant binding upon the purchaser being in an instrument under seal (Kytle v. Kytle, 128 Ga. 387 (57 S. E. 748), and cit.) ; whereas in Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Ry. Co. v. McKinney, 124 Ga. 929 (53 S. E. 701, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436; 110 Am. St. R. 215), the deed was not under seal.

No. 8419. February 25, 1932. P. E. Burns and L. P. Skeen, for plaintiff in error. Watkins, Asbill & Watkins and B. O. Broyles, contra.

2. The obligation of the grantee in the deed referred to was to discharge the lien of a security deed previously executed by the grantor under seal, which had been given to secure the payment of the grantor’s note; and when the grantee failed to pay this note and discharge the lien at the maturity of the note, there was a breach of the covenant contained in the deed, and the statute began to run from that date.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

City of Lawrenceville v. Yancey
294 S.E.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Motz v. Alropa Corporation
15 S.E.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Johnson v. Freberg
289 N.W. 835 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1940)
Nutter v. Mroczka
21 N.E.2d 979 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken
193 N.E. 650 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1934)
National Mortgage Corp. v. Bullard
173 S.E. 401 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Skeen v. Glower
163 S.E. 611 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 S.E. 917, 174 Ga. 510, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skeen-v-glower-ga-1932.