Williams v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Williams v. Rhodes

99 S.E. 531, 149 Ga. 170, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 181

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1919

DocketNo. 1159

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 531 (Williams v. Rhodes) 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

Williams v. Rhodes, 99 S.E. 531, 149 Ga. 170, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 181 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Even if a deed from a husband to his wife, conveying land for a money consideration, falls within the provisions of the Civil Code, § 3009, which declares that “No contract of sale of a wife as to her separate estate with her husband or trustee shall be valid, unless the same is allowed by order of the superior court of the county of her domicile,” so that such a deed without an order of court is invalid, the right to assail its validity on this ground is personal to her and her privies in blood or estate. Munroe v. Baldwin, 145 Ga. 215 (88 S. E. 947). It cannot be asserted by a creditor of the husband, who has reduced his debt to-judgment against the husband after the deed by the husband to the wife, and caused the land to be levied upon as the property of the husband under an execution based on such judgment.

2. Under the principle above stated it was erroneous to exclude from evidence the deed offered by the claimant from her husband (the defendant in fi. fa.), and to direct a verdict finding the property subject.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. Even if a deed from a husband to his wife, conveying land for a money consideration, falls within the provisions of the Civil Code, § 3009, which declares that “No contract of sale of a wife as to her separate estate with her husband or trustee shall be valid, unless the same is allowed by order of the superior court of the county of her domicile,” so that such a deed without an order of court is invalid, the right to assail its validity on this ground is personal to her and her privies in blood or estate. Munroe v. Baldwin, 145 Ga. 215 (88 S. E. 947). It cannot be asserted by a creditor of the husband, who has reduced his debt to-judgment against the husband after the deed by the husband to the wife, and caused the land to be levied upon as the property of the husband under an execution based on such judgment.

2. Under the principle above stated it was erroneous to exclude from evidence the deed offered by the claimant from her husband (the defendant in fi. fa.), and to direct a verdict finding the property subject.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 531, 149 Ga. 170, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-rhodes-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack