Blalock v. Miland

• Decision Date: 13 July 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 551,87 Ga. 573
• Parties: Blalock v. Miland.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

13 S.E. 551

87 Ga. 573

Blalock v. Miland.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 13, 1891

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A deed saying nothing of delivery in the attestation clause is nevertheless prepared for record if attested by two witnesses, one of whom was the clerk of the superior court who signed the attestation in his official character.

2. In order for the heir of a deceased donee to set up a deed of gift made to her by her father it is not necessary that it should appear that the donee or her heir ever had possession of the premises, or that either of them ever had actual custody of the deed.

3. When it appears that an original deed of gift by a father to his daughter was never in the actual custody of the daughter that the father is dead; and that the deed was not among the papers left by him,-the loss of the original is sufficiently accounted for to admit a copy taken from the record.

4. The donor, after making a deed of gift, having sold and conveyed the premises to other persons, there is no presumption that the deed of gift, which was adverse to their title, ever went into their possession; and consequently, whether a notice to one of them was properly directed, or a subpoena duces tecum to the other was properly served, is immaterial there being no diligence to inquire of them incumbent upon the party now claiming under the deed of gift.

5. Declarations of a vendor, now deceased, made at the time of conveying to his vendee, that a previous deed of gift executed by the vendor to his daughter had never been delivered, and that he had destroyed the same, are not admissible in evidence in favor of the vendee against the heir of the daughter claiming under the deed of gift; nor are declarations of a third person, now deceased, that he knew the deed had no been delivered, and that the donor destroyed it.

6. A written declaration, made by the donor, and recorded in the record of deeds, to the effect that he had not delivered to his daughter the deed of gift, and that he revoked and annulled the deed, is not admissible in evidence in favor of his vendee of the premises, the same being made several years after the deed of gift was executed and recorded.

7. It is not incumbent upon the court to specify in his charge to the jury what facts and circumstances would negative the presumption that a duly recorded deed was delivered, or to go over the various facts and circumstances in the evidence...