Stanaland v. Chastain

137 S.E. 409, 36 Ga. App. 581, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 159
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 8, 1927
Docket17793
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 409 (Stanaland v. Chastain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stanaland v. Chastain, 137 S.E. 409, 36 Ga. App. 581, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where two persons agree, one to sell and the other to buy a certain piece of land at a fixed price, and the buyer pays part of the purchase-price and takes and retains possession of the land, but fails to pay the balance of the purchase-price when due under the agreement, and the vendor thereafter elects not to rescind the contract of sale, but to bring an action against the vendee for the balance of the purchase-price, but where his petition fails to allege that he has tendered the defendant a deed to the property, or that he is able and willing to make title on recovery of judgment and the satisfaction of the same by the defendant, his petition is subject to general demurrer, the defendant being entitled either to have the contract of sale rescinded or to have a deed to the property upon the payment of the full purchase-price. Taylor v. Fowler, 155 Ga. 659 (118 S. E. 212); Morris v. McKee, 96 Ga. 611 (2), 613, 614 (24 S. E. 142). See also Smith v. Tatum, 140 Ga. 719 (2) (79 S. E. 775). The case of Knowles v. Elyton Land Co., 88 Ga. 642 (15 S. E. 675), cited by the defendant in error, is distinguished by its particular facts from the instant case and the above-stated cases cited in support of the present ruling, and the rulings made in the Knowles case (some ,of which were obiter) are not in conflict with the present holding.

2. Under the above-stated ruling the court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition; and that error rendered the further proceedings in the ease nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Clifford E. Hay, for plaintiffs in error. J. E. Craigmiles, W. D. MacIntyre, contra.

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

Related

Crim v. Southern Realty & Trust Corp.
144 S.E. 342 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Chastain v. Platt
143 S.E. 378 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 S.E. 409, 36 Ga. App. 581, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanaland-v-chastain-gactapp-1927.