Bridges v. Elrod
| Decision Date | 09 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20873,20873 |
| Citation | 114 S.E.2d 874,216 Ga. 102 |
| Parties | Jonas Bowin BRIDGES v. Sarah B. ELROD. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It was not error to direct a verdict in favor of the return of the partitioners.
2. An alleged error in the judgment or decree of the court can not be reached by a motion for new trial.
Sarah B. Elrod brought a petition for partition by sale of described property against Jonas Bowin Bridges, alleging that the plaintiff and the defendant each own a one-half undivided interest in the land. The defendant, who is the father of the plaintiff, filed an answer and cross-action in which he asserted that his daughter is not entitled to partition because the warranty deed which he executed to her conveying a one-half undivided interest in the property was obtained through fraud; there was a complete failure of consideration; and she is indebted to him in an amount exceeding the value of one-half of the property. The answer prayed that the return of the partitioners be disallowed; that the warranty deed from his to his daughter be declared null and void and canceled of record; that he recover a stated sum of money; that the issues be tried by a jury; and for further relief.
The answer as amended asserted that the fraud alleged consisted of the false promises and representations made by the daughter that she and her daughter would live with the father, and provide for, care for, and furnish a loving family life to him for the rest of his life; that these representations were false and were made for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding him, and for the purpose of inducing him to execute the deed to her; and that he relied upon the false representations, and executed the deed conveying to her a one-half undivided interest in the property.
On motion to strike the answer, in the nature of a general demurrer, the trial judge struck all of the answer except the allegations of fraud, and the case proceeded to trial on this issue. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the return of the partitioners. The father filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, which was amended by the addition of two grounds. The first ground of the amendment contended that the court erred in directing a verdict because there were questions of fact which should have been submitted to a jury. The second ground asserted that the court erred in its judgment, entered after the direction of the verdict in requiring the father to use the amount received from an insurance policy because of damage to the building by fire for the purpose of repairing the building, or in lieu thereof, to divide the proceeds equally with the daughter, less one-half of the annual premium paid by him in the year 1949, and less one-half of the taxes for the year 1959.
Error is assigned on the direction of the verdict in favor of the return of the partitioners, and the denial of the motion for new trial as amended.
Robert L. Scoggin, Jerry L. Minge, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Clower & Anderson, Rome, for defendant in error.
1. The only oral evidence in the case was the testimony of the parties. It appeared from the testimony of both parties that the father (the defendant in the partition proceeding) and the daughter (the plaintiff in the partition proceeding) lived in the house on the property involved in the proceeding from a time prior to her mother's death in 1942 until March, 1959. The daughter married, and her husband lived in the house with them until 1946; and after the birth of her daughter, she also lived with them. The deed from the father to the daughter was executed in June, 1958. The daughter remarried her former husband in January, 1959, and moved to Columbus with him in March, 1959, and has not lived in the house with her father since that time. Until she remarried, the daughter maintained a home for her father, prepared his meals, and washed his clothes.
The daughter testified that she and her father bought the property with their joint funds, and that the deed from her father to her was in consideration of the equity she owned in the property. The father testified that he paid for the property with his money, but admitted at one point in his testimony that at times his daughter had made a part of the payments. He testified that his daughter had begged him to make a deed to her conveying a one-half interest in the property, and had promised him that if he would make it, she would stay with him any take care of him as long as he lived; and he signed the deed because of her promises. After his daughter remarried, she and her husband were so unpleasant to him that he stopped eating with them, and in March, 1959, his daughter, her husband, and his granddaughter moved to Columbus.
'A promise by a grantee to maintain and support the grantor, made as an inducement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Sea Island Bank
...question here made with regard to the form of the judgment was not properly the subject of a motion for a new trial (Bridges v. Elrod, 216 Ga. 102, 106, 114 S.E.2d 874 and cases therein cited) and thus was not a matter put in issue or which might have been put in issue in the cause wherein ......
-
Sands v. Lamar Properties, Inc.
...a direct appeal to this court, not a challenge to the judgment entered through the vehicle of a motion for a new trial. Bridges v. Elrod, 216 Ga. 102(2), 114 S.E.2d 874; Potts v. City of Atlanta, 140 Ga. 431, 433, 79 S.E. 110. The notice of appeal having been filed in this case over two mon......
-
Rushing v. Bashlor, 22038
...185 Ga. 761, 196 S.E. 412; Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238, 52 S.E.2d 845; Sutton v. McMillan, 213 Ga. 90(4), 97 S.E.2d 139; Bridges v. Elrod, 216 Ga. 102, 114 S.E.2d 874. Hence, the court did not err in overruling any of the general demurrers to the Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. ...
-
Worth v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 69399
...upon by appellee in its motion to dismiss this appeal, Barber v. Barber, 157 Ga. 188, 121 S.E. 317 (1924), and Bridges v. Elrod, 216 Ga. 102(2), 114 S.E.2d 874 (1960), do not, as appellee contends they do, establish an absolute rule that the direction of a verdict cannot be challenged by a ......