Ambrose v. Ambrose

• Decision Date: 30 July 1894
• Parties: AMBROSE v. AMBROSE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

19 S.E. 980

94 Ga. 655

AMBROSE v. AMBROSE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 30, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The case was not within the statute of frauds. Code, § 1951; Little v. McCarter, 89 N.C. 233.

2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

Error from superior court, Gwinnett county; N. L. Hutchins, Judge.

Action by Dora Ambrose, administratrix, against B. S. Ambrose. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, from a judgment denying a new trial, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed and promised to pay deceased that sum if he would join him in the purchase of 400 acres of land; that defendant wanted the land, but his father would only pay $1,500 therefor, when defendant could not get it for less than $1,600; and, in order to procure the place as a home, defendant secured his brother's consent to go in with him, and purchased this and 150 acres in addition agreeing to pay "this sum to plaintiff if he would do so, which he did, and, after doing so, he refused to pay and comply with his promise to pay as aforesaid." Plaintiff's claim, as made by the evidence, really was that there were two places for sale, one at $1,500 and the other at $900, and the places would not be sold without selling them both; that the price of one place was $1,500 and the other $900; that defendant's father was to furnish defendant the money, and would only furnish $1,500; that defendant's brother (plaintiff's intestate) did not want to buy the land at all, and, when he finally consented to do so, was to pay only $800 for the second place, but was to give notes for $900, defendant orally agreeing that if his brother would take the second place at $900, defendant would pay him the $100 difference; that his brother consented, and took the place, giving his notes for $900, which plaintiff has paid off since his death, and that defendant refuses to pay the $100. Defendant pleaded the general issue, and that the account sued on, purported to be for and concerning lands, was not in writing, and for that reason was void. The evidence adduced upon the trial seems directly conflicting. There was a verdict for plaintiff for the sum sued for, and defendant's motion for a new trial being overruled, he excepted. The grounds of the motion were that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and without evidence to...