All v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 28 February 1882
• Citation: 68 Ga. 490
• Parties: All. vs. Matthews et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 Ga. 490

All. vs. Matthews et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1882.

Homestead. Title. Ejectment. Estoppel. Before Judge Willis. Talbot Superior Court. September Term, 1881.

Little et al. brought complaint for land against Hall. Their title rested on a deed made by Hall and his wife to them in March, 1878.

Defendant insisted that the deed conveyed no title, and was a mere security for a debt. He offered an equitable plea alleging these facts, and praying that the land be sold, the debt paid, and the balance of proceeds paid to him. The court struck the plea. Defendant then put in evidence the records of the court of ordinary, showing that Hall had applied in 1873 for a homestead. The application stated that he was "the head of a family; that his family consists of himself his wife, Nancy Hall, and a grandchild about five years old, and several colored persons he has employed to work on his farm for the present year." Upon this application, the land in controversy was set apart as a homestead, and so remained at the time deed was made to plaintiff.

The grandchild was a girl, whose father had deserted his family, and who was and had been nearly all her life dependent on her grandfather. It was admitted that at the time of making the deed, defendant's wife, Nancy Hall, was insane. She died shortly after delivery of deed to plaintiffs.

The court instructed the jury that upon the death of Mrs. Hall the property reverted to Hall, and that although the deed made to plaintiffs was not good when made, yet upon the death of Mrs. Hall and the reversion as above stated taking place, it enured to the benefit of plaintiffs.

The jury found for the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial on the following among other grounds:

(1.) Because the ruling just above stated was error.

(2.) Because the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the special plea of defendant.

(3.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence.

The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.

E. H. Worrill & Son; Marion Bethune; J. H. Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Mathews; Smith & Little; M. H. Blandford, for defendants.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

1. We think that the court erred in ruling that the homestead estate of the defendant ended upon the death of his wife. The grandchild dependent on him and raised by him from a babe, on the death of his daughter, is only thirteen years old now, and a beneficiary of the homestead as well as his wife; and...