Bloodworth v. Bloodworth

Decision Date05 November 1970
Docket NumberNo. 26150,26150
Citation178 S.E.2d 198,226 Ga. 898
PartiesGeorge Albert BLOODWORTH, Executor, et al. v. Florabelle Collier BLOODWORTH et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Partners of a deceased member of a partnership, who are executors of his estate, are not precluded from showing by evidence not contained in the deed conveying the property that property conveyed to members of the partnership as tenants in common was partnership property which they were authorized to purchase under the terms of the partnership agreement.

2. The legatees of the deceased partner are not estopped by recitals concerning a partnership in existence at that time, made in a deed by the deceased conveying an interest in property to his mother in 1943, to assert that the same property, an interest in which was previously conveyed to the deceased partner individually, was not an asset of a partnership formed in 1947.

Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Maurice C. Thomas, Wallace Miller, Jr., Macon, for appellants.

G. Lee Dickens, Jr., J. Edward Hall, Milledgeville, for appellees.

MOBLEY, Presiding Justice.

Mrs. Florabelle Collier Bloodworth (now Middlebrooks) and others brought a petition in equity against George Albert Bloodworth and George Ernest Bloodworth, Jr., individually and as executors of Julius Logan Bloodworth (the deceased husband of Mrs. Bloodworth), seeking injunction and cancellation of deeds made by the defendants as executors of Julius Logan Bloodworth to themselves individually, purporting to convey partnership property owned by the testator, for a stated consideration, under the terms of a partnership agreement between the testator, the defendant, and their mother, Mrs. Lillie O. Bloodworth.

Judgment was entered on some of the demurrers of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and thereafter the trial court entered judgment declaring the conveyances void, and enjoining the defendants from purchasing the interest of the testator in the partnership property.

On previous appeal of the case, this court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The headnote summarizes our holding as follows: 'Where a partnership agreement obligates the representative of a deceased partner to convey his interest in the partnership to the surviving partners for named considerations, and thereafter one partner executes his will naming two of his brothers and partners as executors, such executors after qualification are not self-dealing or unfaithful to their trust as executors when they convey to themselves the interest of the deceased partner for the consideration fixed in the partnership agreement; and such conveyances are valid. But where it is alleged and denied that some property thus conveyed did not belong to the partnership, the issue thus made should be decided by a jury after hearing evidence.' Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 224 Ga. 717, 164 S.E.2d 823.

Thereafter an additional amendment was filed to the petition, and the defendants renewed their demurrers and filed an additional ground of demurrer. These demurrers were overruled on the same date that the judge entered judgment on the remittitur of this court. In the judgment on the remittitur, the judge listed the parcels of property conveyed by the executors to themselves concerning which there is an issue as to whether it was partnership property. At a later date the judge made rulings on numerous special demurrers of the plaintiffs to the defendants' answer, sustaining a number of these. He certified these rulings for immediate review.

The defendants appealed to this court from the order sustaining demurrers to their answer, the order overruling their demurrers, and the portion of the order on remittitur which held that there were issues of fact as to whether specified parcels of property were partnership property. These rulings are enumerated as error.

1. The petition was filed prior to the effective date of the Civil Practice Act, and the trial judge entered an order holding that the sufficiency of the pleadings would be determined by demurrers under the former procedure.

In the judgment ruling on special demurrers of the plaintiffs to the defendants' answer, numerous grounds of demurrer were sustained and portions of the answer of the defendants were stricken. We consider first the main issue which was decided by the judgment.

The deeds made by the executors to themselves individually, pursuant to the partnership agreement, conveyed several separate tracts of land. In some of the deeds by which an interest was vested in the testator to these tracts of land, the grantee was designated as Cherokee Products Company. In others, the property was conveyed to 'Cherokee Products Company, a partnership composed of Mrs. Lillie O. Bloodworth, G. Ernest Bloodworth, J. Logan Bloodworth, and G. Albert Bloodworth,' or similar designation. Without controversy, this was partnership property. In the other deeds, the property was conveyed to the four persons composing the partnership, with nothing in the deed indicating that it was partnership property. The special demurrers of the plaintiffs contended that the defendants, as executors of the will of the testator, should not be permitted to show by extrinsic evidence that the property conveyed by these deeds was partnership property.

The trial judge in his order stated that he concluded that the former decision of this court in the case (224 Ga. 717, 164 S.E.2d 823, supra) did not decide the issue made by these demurrers; and stated further that it was his opinion that the defendant executors would not be allowed to show by evidence, not contained in the deeds, that property conveyed to the individuals comprising the partnership was actually partnership property, for the reason that: 'To permit this to be done would be to allow the surviving brothers, who are ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Canadyne-Georgia Corp v. Nationsbank N.A., CANADYNE-GEORGIA
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 11 August 1999
    ...partnership interest in WCW, however, the individual partners owned the real property of the partnership. See Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 178 S.E.2d 198, 200 (Ga. 1970) ("Legal title to real property can never vest in a partnership as such; legal title is in the partners as tenants in common.......
  • Varner v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 6 February 1973
    ...Roswell Road Properties does not, under Georgia law, preclude the property from being partnership property. See Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 226 Ga. 898, 178 S.E. 2d 198 (1970). The petitioners find some authority for their position in Lulu L. Powell Dec. 28,348(M), T.C. Memo. 1967-32. There t......
  • Canadyne-Georgia Corp. v. Nationsbank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • 11 June 1997
    ...not the case at the time Fulton National held a general partnership interest in Woolfolk Chemical Works. See Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 226 Ga. 898, 901, 178 S.E.2d 198, 200 (1970)("Legal title to real property can never vest in a partnership as such; legal title is in the partners as tenant......
  • Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Alexander Equities, Inc., 36063
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 24 June 1980
    ...account were held to be partnership funds and thus subject to garnishment by the husband's judgment creditor. In Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 226 Ga. 898, 178 S.E.2d 198 (1970), this court held that extrinsic evidence could be admitted to prove that a deed naming four individuals as grantees w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Environmental Law - W. Scott Laseter and Chintan K. Amin
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 51-4, June 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...Court's holding in United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 63-64 (1998). 54. 982 F. Supp. at 888 (citing Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 178 S.E.2d 198, 200 (Ga. 1970)). 55. Id. at 889 (quoting O.C.G.A. Sec. 14-9-101 cmt. (1994)). 56. Id. (citing Beaudry, Inc. v. Freeman, 38 S.E.2d 40, 48 (Ga. C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT