Spencer v. Schuman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Spencer v. Schuman

64 S.E. 466, 132 Ga. 515, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 347

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 466 (Spencer v. Schuman) 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

Spencer v. Schuman, 64 S.E. 466, 132 Ga. 515, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 347 (Ga. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Holden, J.

1. A deed absolute on its face may be shown by parol evidence to have been intended to convey title only for the purpose of securing a debt, where the grantee has not taken possession of the property. Askew v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 325 (58 S. E. 854).

2. Where one brought a statutory complaint for land and relied for recovery upon title conveyed to him by the defendant by.a deed claimed [516]*516by tbie plaintiff to be absolute, and the defendant filed a defense, and offered testimony in support thereof that the deed was given to secure a debt which had been fully paid before the action was brought, it was not error upon the trial to admit in evidence, over the plaintiff’s objections, the following testimony of a witness for the defendant: “I asked Spencer [plaintiff] if he was not to make a deed back to Schuman’s [defendant’s] wife when the money was paid back. At first he laughed and did not answer, and then said yes.” Such evidence was admissible as an admission by the plaintiff, to illustrate the issue to be tried, and was not subject to the objection made thereto that it was irrelevant and incompetent and there were no pleadings to authorize its admission.

Submitted January 16, Decided April 19, 1909.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Seabrook. Liberty superior court. February 7, 1908.

Stubbs & Chapman, for plaintiff:. A. S. Way, for defendant.

3. The record not disclosing that any of the pleadings in the case were verified, or otherwise sworn to, it does not appear that the court committed any error in refusing to give to the jury the following requested instructions: “I charge you that you have a right to consider the statements made in sworn pleadings in the case, in weighing the evidence of the party who swore to such pleadings.” ,

4. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Holden, J.

1. A deed absolute on its face may be shown by parol evidence to have been intended to convey title only for the purpose of securing a debt, where the grantee has not taken possession of the property. Askew v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 325 (58 S. E. 854).

2. Where one brought a statutory complaint for land and relied for recovery upon title conveyed to him by the defendant by.a deed claimed [516]*516by tbie plaintiff to be absolute, and the defendant filed a defense, and offered testimony in support thereof that the deed was given to secure a debt which had been fully paid before the action was brought, it was not error upon the trial to admit in evidence, over the plaintiff’s objections, the following testimony of a witness for the defendant: “I asked Spencer [plaintiff] if he was not to make a deed back to Schuman’s [defendant’s] wife when the money was paid back. At first he laughed and did not answer, and then said yes.” Such evidence was admissible as an admission by the plaintiff, to illustrate the issue to be tried, and was not subject to the objection made thereto that it was irrelevant and incompetent and there were no pleadings to authorize its admission.

Submitted January 16, Decided April 19, 1909.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Seabrook. Liberty superior court. February 7, 1908.

Stubbs & Chapman, for plaintiff:. A. S. Way, for defendant.

3. The record not disclosing that any of the pleadings in the case were verified, or otherwise sworn to, it does not appear that the court committed any error in refusing to give to the jury the following requested instructions: “I charge you that you have a right to consider the statements made in sworn pleadings in the case, in weighing the evidence of the party who swore to such pleadings.” ,

4. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 466, 132 Ga. 515, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-schuman-ga-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack