59 Ga. 454 (Ga. 1877), Cherry v. Davis

Citation:59 Ga. 454
Opinion Judge:BLECKLEY, Judge.
Party Name:JOB H. CHERRY, trustee, plaintiff in error, v. ELIZA A. DAVIS, defendant in error.
Attorney:Bacon & Rutherford, for plaintiff in error. R. K. Hines, by brief, for defendant.
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 454

59 Ga. 454 (Ga. 1877)

JOB H. CHERRY, trustee, plaintiff in error,


ELIZA A. DAVIS, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

August, 1877

          Prescription. Vendor and purchaser. Warranty. New trial. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1876.

         Reported in the opinion.

         Bacon & Rutherford, for plaintiff in error.

         R. K. Hines, by brief, for defendant.

         BLECKLEY, Judge.

         Cherry bargained for land by parol, went into possession and made valuable improvements. He paid nothing on the purchase. The vendor brought ejectment. Cherry defended it by an equitable plea, the burden of which was, that the vendor did not have a complete chain of title, and that there were unsatisfied judgments against a former vendor, which constituted an incumbrance upon the property. The evidence showed that the vendor was perfectly solvent; that she was worth from $5,000.00 to $11,000.00. The agreed price for the premises was only $600 00. It was proved that her title was paper color, supported by more than seven years adverse possession. Moreover, it appeared that though there were unsatisfied judgments against the former vendor, no steps had been taken to enforce them against the property. The defendant proved the erection of improvements costing $2,800.00. The jury found, specially, that on receipt of the purchase money and interest, in thirty days, the vendor should convey with warranty of title; and that if the money was not paid, the premises to revert to, and be the property of, the vendor. Motion for a new trial was made by the vendee on the usual grounds, and on alleged error in charging the jury, and in refusing to charge as requested. The motion was overruled. In the record is the copy of a warranty deed filed in the clerk's office for the vendee's acceptance, conformably to the verdict and decree.

         1. The title by prescription was established, and as there was no special contract for a paper title only, the vendee could not decline to complete the purchase because the paper chain, back to the state, was incomplete. It is certainly a great convenience to have full documentary evidence of the title to land, but those who will be content with nothing else must take care to make their bargains accordingly.

         2. The vendee went into possession, paying nothing, and leaving the legal title in the vendor. In...

To continue reading