Bond v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 18 February 1911
• Citation: 70 S.E. 572,135 Ga. 733
• Parties: BOND. v. HUNT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

70 S.E. 572

135 Ga. 733

BOND.

v.HUNT.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 18, 1911.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Parties (§ 29^*)—Persons Interested.

All persons who are directly interested in the event of the suit should be made parties.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parties Cent. Dig. § 41; Dec. Dig. § 29.*]

2. Ejectment (§ 93^2-*)—Evidence.

The verdict for the prevailing party in this case was unauthorized; the evidence demanding a verdict for the other party.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Ejectment, Dec. Dig. § 93.*]

Error from Superior Court, Elbert County; D. W. Meadow, Judge.

Action by L. C. P. Hunt against H. S. Bond. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Jos. N. Worley, for plaintiff in error.

Proffitt & Brown, for defendant in error.

BECK, J. Miss Laura Hunt brought an equitable petition for the recovery of land against Mrs. Henrietta S. Bond, who was in possession of the property. Petitioner claimed that she was the owner in fee of the property, and had a perfect equity thereto because of the following facts: She is the daughter of Willis Hunt, deceased, who died testate in the year 1872, devising a certain tract of land to his wife for life, with remainder in fee simple to his children, and directing that the land after the death of his wife should be divided, and that the parcels of land into which it was divided should be distributed among his children by lot. This direction was duly followed, and the tract of land numbered 4 (the property in controversy) was allotted to B. M. T. Hunt, one of the petitioner's brothers. The latter was an idiot, incapable of caring for himself, and requiring constant care and nursing. In consequence of the condition of the unfortunate brother, it was agreed between petitioner and the other brothers and sisters that petitioner was to take charge of and care for the idiot brother during his life, and, in consideration of the services so undertaken, she should have the parcel of land which had been allotted to her afflicted brother. She faithfully performed the duties undertaken. On the death of B. M. T. Hunt, petitioner inherited a one-fifth interest in said land, and the other four-fifths descended to the brothers and sisters of the petitioner, and, under the agreement above referred to, their title inured to petitioner's benefit, as was conceded by the brothers and sisters, thus giving to petitioner a perfect equity in the land. When petitioner entered upon the performance of her agreement to care for B. M. T. Hunt, she took possession of the land under contract, and remained in possession continuously, peaceably, and notoriously until the 1st day of January, 1907, when the defendant took possession under a pretended purchase from one Susan Hunt, who had never had either possession or title to the property or any claim of title whatever. After the death of B. M. T. Hunt, S. J. W. Hunt, another brother of petitioner, became administrator of the estate of the deceased brother, and informed peti tioner that, in order to perfect her title and protect said land for her, it was necessary for him to administer on the estate of the dead brother, and to sell the land and have it bid in for her, and informed petitioner that he had engaged one J. W. Norman to bid the land off at the sale for petitioner, and subsequently to the sale told her that Norman had bid the land off for her, and that her title was regular; and petitioner thought she had a deed to the land, but has been recently informed that the administrator's deed had been made to J. W. Norman, and that he had never executed a deed to petitioner. Norman told the petitioner that he had bid the land off for her, and that it was her land; and since then the defendant had often spoken of the land as her property. It was further alleged that the defendant does not hold under any conveyance from J. W. Norman or the executors of his estate, but that the executors of Norman transferred to the defendant an indebtedness against Susan F. Hunt, the wife of S. J. W. Hunt, and to settle the same defendant took a deed from Susan Hunt to the lot of land. J. W. Norman did not pay the administrator anything for the land, and had possession of the same. In the petition it is also contended that as Henrietta S. Bond does not hold under J. W. Norman, but holds under Susan F. Hunt, and, as no one claims under said administrator's deed, it is unnecessary to ask for a decree of cancellation of the same. The deed from the administrator of B. M. T. Hunt to Norman was introduced in evidence by the defendant, and a deed from the heirs at law of Norman to the defendant was in evidence. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial made by the defendant was overruled, and she excepted.

1. During the trial the defendant submitted a motion in writing to have the executors of J. W. Norman made parties to the cause. This motion the court overruled, and the defendant excepted. This motion should have been sustained. It is clear from the allegations of the petition, considered in connection with the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, that an attack upon the deed from the administrator of B. M. T. Hunt to J. W. Norman was being made. The deed from B. M. T. Hunt's administrator to...