Broadhurst v. Hill
| Decision Date | 23 March 1912 |
| Citation | 74 S.E. 422,137 Ga. 833 |
| Parties | BROADHURST et al. v. HILL et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under former rulings of this court, the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed for refusing to direct a verdict on motion of one of the parties.
The judge of the superior court should not direct a verdict except where there is no conflict in the evidence, and where that introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, demands a particular verdict.
(a) In the case at bar, although there was positive evidence that one who appeared as a purchaser in an administratrix's deed, together with two others, was not in fact such, but merely loaned money to the others for the purpose of paying a part of the purchase price, and that his name was inserted in the deed as a mode of securing him for the loan, and that the deed did not express the legal intention of the parties, yet the entire evidence in the record was not such that it, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, or authorized the presiding judge to direct a verdict in their favor.
If a husband purchases land at a sale made by his wife as administratrix, such purchase is voidable at the election of heirs of the intestate, who move within a reasonable time after the sale to set it aside.
The doctrine that, although a sale may be voidable as against an original purchaser, bona fide purchasers from him for value and without notice may acquire a title which cannot be successfully attacked or set aside, is not so applicable to the present case as to demand a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. This case did not originate in a proceeding instituted by heirs against subsequent purchasers from those who bought at the administratrix's sale, to recover from them or cancel their title. As to the plaintiffs, it is an equitable proceeding instituted by persons who claim to be the original purchasers at the administratrix's sale, for the purpose of correcting an alleged mistake in a deed made by the administratrix. The verdict directed was in favor of the plaintiffs on their proceeding, and also against the cross-petition.
Under the evidence in the record, a direction of a verdict in favor of persons claiming to be purchasers at the administratrix's sale, and seeking to have the deed made to them and another so reformed as to eliminate such other person as a purchaser, cannot be sustained by this court, on the ground that, as matter of law, the defendant, who contested the case as guardian for the minor heirs, and such heirs, were estopped from asserting the invalidity of the sale by reason of the receipt of a part of the purchase money by the guardian.
On another trial the newly discovered evidence can be offered and it is unnecessary to deal with its weight or force at this time.
The fact that a defendant may make a motion that a verdict be directed in his favor, which is overruled, does not, without more, waive the submission of the case to the jury, or authorize the presiding judge, on motion, to direct a verdict for the plaintiff, where the evidence, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, does not demand such a verdict.
As a reversal is granted, it is unnecessary to deal with the question of taxing costs by the presiding judge.
Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.
Action by E. B. Hill and another against R. S. Broadhurst, guardian and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed. plaintiff, where the evidence does not demand such a verdict.
Mrs Bela Hill Moreland, as administratrix of the estate of Mrs. Pauline A. Hill, deceased, obtained an order for the sale of real estate of the intestate, advertised it, and exposed it for sale on the first Tuesday in January, 1910. She made an administratrix's deed to E. B. Hill, W. D. Moreland, and D. B. Hill. It recited: After reciting the order of sale and the advertisement, the deed further stated that the administratrix "did expose to sale, within the legal hours of sale, on the first Tuesday in January, 1910, the real estate hereinafter described, when the parties of the second part became the purchasers thereof, being the highest and best bidders at said sale." This deed was duly recorded on January 12th. E. B. Hill and D. B. Hill were the brothers of the administratrix, and W. D. Moreland was her husband.
On October 26th thereafter E. B. Hill and D. B. Hill filed their equitable petition against Mrs. Moreland, individually and as administratrix, W. D. Moreland, and the other heirs of the intestate, two of them being her children, and four her minor grandchildren, and against the guardian of the latter. They alleged, in substance, as follows: There are no creditors of the estate, and no unpaid debts. At the sale by the administratrix, plaintiffs were the highest bidders, and the property was knocked off to them at the aggregate price of $29,905. The sale was public, open, and fair, and the property brought its full value at that time. It brought more than the plaintiffs anticipated that it would, and they were without means to pay the full cash purchase price. They made arrangements with, and secured from, W. D. Moreland, as a loan, one-fourth of the amount of the purchase price, to enable them to pay for the property. In order to secure him for the advance, they requested the administratrix, instead of making the deed to them cover the entire interest in the property, to convey to Moreland an undivided one-fourth interest, which was done, and the deed made as above stated. The conveyance to Moreland of the undivided one-fourth interest was not intended to convey to him the absolute title thereto, but was only to secure him the advance made by him to them, to enable them to pay the purchase price. Moreland was to have no interest in the land or title thereto, except as security for the money loaned to them, and he does not claim and never has claimed any title to the land except as security. "Petitioners show that said deed conveying to said Moreland the undivided one-fourth interest in said property was a mistake of said administratrix, of your petitioners, and of said Moreland, and was contrary to the intention of said parties, was an unintentional error, arising from ignorance on the part of the parties, with no intention to convey to said Moreland an absolute fee-simple title to said undivided one-fourth interest." The plaintiffs prayed that the mistake in conveying to Moreland the undivided one-fourth interest in the property be corrected and the deed reformed, and that the title to said property be decreed to be absolute and in fee simple in them, "to each an undivided one-half interest therein," and that they have general relief.
Moreland answered the equitable petition, admitting the allegations thereof, and alleging that he had been repaid the loan of $7,476.25, and in pursuance of the agreement had conveyed the one-fourth interest in the land to the plaintiffs. A copy of the deed was attached to the answer, which showed that it contained recitals in accordance with such answer, and that it was made on October 31st, five days after the commencement of the suit. The answer of Mrs. Moreland individually and as administratrix was in accord with the allegations of the plaintiffs. She alleged that she was informed that the plaintiffs had made arrangements with Moreland for the loan of some money with which to pay a part of the purchase price that as administratrix she made the deed as it appears, at the request of the plaintiffs; that she never understood that he had purchased any interest in the property, but always understood that it was purchased by the plaintiffs; that the funds arising from the sale had been distributed among the heirs, and $4,829.98 had been paid to Broadhurst as guardian for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial