Wright v. McCord

39 S.E. 510, 113 Ga. 881, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 404
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 19, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 39 S.E. 510 (Wright v. McCord) 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
Wright v. McCord, 39 S.E. 510, 113 Ga. 881, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 404 (Ga. 1901).

Opinion

Little, J.

1. The above report of this case clearly shows a state of facts which would estop W. A. Wright, the claimant, from denying title to the land in question to have been in John A. Wright, the defendant in fi. fa., as against McCord, the plaintiff in fi. fa., at the time the loan was made by McCord to John A. Wright; it appearing that W. A. Wright acted for John A. Wright in securing the loan, and represented to the lender that title to this land which was offered as security was in John A. Wright, the loan having thereby been secured as desired, and McCord having taken a deed to the land from John A. Wright as security for the loan.

2. It is only claimed for the plaintiff in error that an equitable [883]*883-estoppel can not be urged on the trial of a claim case, unless the pleadings so authorize. We do not agree with this contention. The only issue which was raised in this case was raised by the •claimant, and the only question with which he was concerned was whether as to him the land levied on was subject to the execution. No one else had any interest in, or could be bound by, the judgment rendered in the case, except the plaintiff in fi. fa. and ■ the claimant. If as to the claimant the land was subject, that was an end of the case; and this we think could be shown, as was done, without any amendment to the pleadings. It is in cases where for some equitable cause a verdict is to be molded in a claim case that there must be pleadings sufficient to indicate the character of the finding sought, and supported, perhaps, by a proper prayer. But where the naked question is whether the land levied on is subject to the legal process which has seized it, and this issue is raised upon an ordinary claim proceeding, we know of no reason why there should be separate pleadings alleging that the land is subject because the claimant is estopped from asserting his title. Proof of such estoppel determines the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Bell v. Studdard
141 S.E.2d 536 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Auld v. Schmelz
39 S.E.2d 39 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Bleckley v. Robertson
20 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Rieves v. Smith
192 S.E. 372 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Beasley Motor Co. v. Cowart
154 S.E. 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Davis v. Citizens-Floyd Bank & Trust Co.
139 S.E. 826 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Askew v. Amos
95 S.E. 5 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 S.E. 510, 113 Ga. 881, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-mccord-ga-1901.