Bentley v. Greer

• Decision Date: 23 November 1896
• Citation: Bentley v. Greer, 100 Ga. 35, 27 S. E. 974 (Ga. 1896)
• Parties: BENTLEY et al. v. GREER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

27 S.E. 974

100 Ga. 35

BENTLEY et al.

v.GREER.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 23, 1896.

Infants—Deeds—Ratification.

Knowledge of the fact of the execution of a deed by himself may be imputed to an infant if, at the time of its execution, he has arrived at such years of discretion as that, in the ordinary course of events, he can be reasonably supposed to take an account of his action, and of incidents occurring in his career; and although, upon his becoming of age, such a deed does not operate as an absolute estoppel upon him, yet he is then, and from that time, chargeable with knowledge of the legal effect of his deed, and must thereafter, within a reasonable time, disaffirm his act, or he is bound by his deed, even though there be no actual adverse possession thereunder.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Dooly county; E. H. Callaway, Judge.

Action by Francis A. Bentley and others against C. C. Greer. There was a judgment for defendant, except as against plaintiff William H Bentley, and the other plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Busbee, Crum & Busbee, Gustin, Guerry & Hall, and J. W. Haygood, for plaintiffs in error.

Littlejohn & Thomson, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. This was an action by certain brothers and sisters of M. A. Bentley and the children of a deceased sister for the recovery of a tract of land to which they claimed title as his heirs at law. They alleged that the defendant was in possession, claiming title under a conveyance of the land purporting to have been signed by the deceased daughter, above referred to, and by each of the brothers and sisters suing, except William H. Bentley, whose name purported to have been signed thereto by another person as his attorney in fact; and they had never signed it, nor authorized any one to sign in their behalf. The deed was dated August 26, 1856, md the suit was brought In 1895. There was a verdict for William H. Bentley for an undivided seventh interest in the premises and damages, and in favor of the defendant as to the other plaintiffs; and the latter moved for a new trial, which was refused, and they excepted. The motion was upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and upon the further ground that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury that, if certain of the plaintiff were minors at the time of the execution of the deed, it did not convey their interests in the land described in it, unless they subsequently ratified their former action In signing the deed; that mere acquiescence after becoming of age would not be construed as a ratification of the act unless the defendant or others under whom he claimed were in actual possession of the land, claiming title under the deed; and that, if no one was in actual possession, claiming under the deed, they would not be called upon to disaffirm it. There was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the deed was executed upon the date stated therein, and by all of the persons whose names were signed to it, except the one in whose favor the jury found; and there was evidence that the plaintiffs mentioned in the request to charge, who were minors at the time of signing, were at that time about 16 and 18 years of age,...