Zeigler v. Arnett

83 S.E. 112, 142 Ga. 487, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 437
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 23, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 112 (Zeigler v. Arnett) 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
Zeigler v. Arnett, 83 S.E. 112, 142 Ga. 487, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 437 (Ga. 1914).

Opinion

Hill, J.

Tallulah 0. Arnett and others brought an equitable petition against S. W. Zeigler as sole defendant, to recover a described tract of land, and to obtain a decree cancelling .two deeds alleged to have been given to secure debts, as being a cloud on her title. A demurrer was overruled. After a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, a motion for a new trial was made by the defendant, which was overruled, and he excepted, assigning error also on the overruling of the demurrer. The demurrer set up, among other grounds, a nonjoinder of parties defendant. One of the deeds sought to be cancelled was a warranty deed from one of the complainants, Robert Arnett Jr., and others to George W. Waters, and the other a warranty deed from Robert Arnett Jr. and another to E. D. White Sr., both of which were alleged to have been given to secure debts which had been fully, paid. Waters also made a conveyance to White, who made a quitclaim deed to the defendant. The demurrer averred a nonjoinder in that Waters and White were not made parties. Held, that as grantees they were necessary parties to a proceeding seeking a cancellation of the deeds to them. Taylor v. Colley, 138 Ga. 41 (74 S. E. 694).

(а) There was no error in overruling the general demurrer based on the ground that no cause of action was set out.

(б) The case having proceeded to trial in the absence of necessary parties, ■we will not adjudicate questions arising on the trial, but reverse the judgment because of the error ,in overruling the demurrer raising the question of nonjoinder of parties.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Coe v. Greenville Credit & Investment Co.
298 S.E.2d 36 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Neal v. Stapleton
46 S.E.2d 130 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Camp v. King
17 S.E.2d 65 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Jefferson Standard Life Insurance v. Fendley
186 S.E. 722 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Hermann v. Mobley
158 S.E. 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Cochran v. Groover
118 S.E. 865 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
MacDougall v. National Bank
104 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Smith
96 S.E. 562 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 S.E. 112, 142 Ga. 487, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigler-v-arnett-ga-1914.