Wynne v. Alford

29 Ga. 694
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

— Lumpkin J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion.

As the bill in this case stands, it is defective in two particulars.

It fails to charge distinctly that there was a contract between the parties to the effect, that Alford should buy in the [696]*696three 'negroes, under his mortgage foreclosure, and after crediting the execution with the value of two of them, to-wit: Alfred and Rachel, and paymentshould be made to him of the balance of his debt by Wynne and wife, he would settle upon Mrs. Wynne, to her separate use for life, with remainder to her children, the girl Amanda. And that Wynne, the husband, was a party to the contract.

We affirm, therefore, the judgment of the Court below, with leave to the complainants to amend the bill, as suggested,, provided they can do so.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wynne v. Alford, 29 Ga. 694 (Ga. 1860).

29 Ga. 694 (Wynne v. Alford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whiten v. Orr Construction Co.
136 S.E.2d 136 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
McRae v. Sears
187 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Staton v. Exchange Bank
82 S.E. 784 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Dennis v. Schofield's Sons Co.
57 S.E. 925 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Paterson
13 S.E. 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)