Bell v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 23 May 1896
• Parties: BELL v. STEWART.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

27 S.E. 153

98 Ga. 669

BELL v. STEWART.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 23, 1896

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a wife's money was used by her husband with her consent in part payment for a tract of land, upon an express parol agreement between them that, when the land was fully paid for, he was to make her a deed to "her pro rata part of the land purchased," and, upon his completing payment, he took the title to the entire tract in his own name, the wife owned an equitable undivided interest in the land, and it was perfectly proper and lawful for the husband to convey to her a portion of the land, not greater in value than the amount of her money which went into the purchase.

2. If this was done in good faith, before a particular creditor of the husband obtained a judgment against him, the wife's title was superior to the judgment, although, in the creation of the debt upon which this judgment was founded, the creditor may have extended credit upon the belief that the entire tract belonged to the husband; it not appearing that the wife had ever said or done anything to mislead the creditor, or warrant him in believing that she treated the whole tract as the husband's exclusive property, and it not being shown that she permitted him to use it as such.

3. The mere fact that she lived upon the tract of land with her husband, and enjoyed it jointly with him, would not, under the facts above recited, be sufficient to show that she "permitted him to use the property as his own."

4. In view of the principles above announced, and of the evidence in the case, the charge of the court was not precisely adjusted to the issues involved.

Error from superior court, Carroll county; S.W. Harris, Judge.

Execution in favor of C. H. Stewart against N. Bell was levied on property claimed by Emeline Bell. From a judgment against claimant, she brings error. Reversed.

Capers Hodnett and Cobb & Bro., for plaintiff in error.

Sidney Holderness, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

An execution in favor of C. H. Stewart against N. Bell, based on a judgment of October 6, 1893, was levied upon certain land which was claimed by the wife of Bell. There was a verdict finding the property subject, and the claimant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and she excepted. It appears from the evidence that the father of the claimant gave her, in 1874, $200 to be invested in the land in question, and that she turned over the money to her husband the defendant, for that purpose. The husband paid the $200 as part of the purchase money of the land, and afterwards paid the remainder with his own money, and took a deed from the vendor conveying the land to himself. When the husband received the $200 from the wife, it was with the understanding that, when the land should be fully paid for she was to have a deed to her "pro rata part of the land." Subsequently the husband became indebted to the firm of W. J. Stewart & Bro., for goods purchased from them, and gave them his promissory note for the amount due, and it is upon this note that the judgment in question is founded. The wife did not know at the time the deed to her husband was made that the title had been conveyed to the husband alone, and, as soon as she learned of it, she insisted that he should make a deed to her of her pro rata part of the land, according to the understanding originally had,...