Brogdon v. Hogan

Decision Date13 February 1941
Docket Number13448.
PartiesBROGDON v. HOGAN et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. There was no error in allowing the amendments, or in overruling the demurrers to the petition as amended.

2. The evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, and it was erroneous of refuse to grant a new trial.

This is the same case as that reported in 189 Ga. 244, 5 S.E.2d 657, where the general nature of the case is shown. On the second trial evidence was introduced, showing the treatment accorded F. M. Hogan and W. J. Hogan, how the farm was managed, etc. Those portions of the evidence relating to the existence of the contract relied on by defendants in error and here given. As to the making of the agreement, the evidence was as follows: 'Walt Fowler, referring to a conversation he had had several years previously with F. M Hogan, testified: 'After we had some water and got some chairs, he got off on the subject of making a will to Fred and his wife to the farm. I don't know whether it is this place down there or not. I couldn't say exactly what it was that was said, but they were talking about some will or deed, and one of them asked where Fred was and the other said he was down on the island. I don't know whether it was the one that could walk was the one that was talking about the will or deed or not, but the will or deed was to be made to Fred and his wife. I have never talked to you about this case.'

W L. Roberts, referring to a conversation with the same party swore: 'He said he was thinking about making a will or deed; he talked like he had talked to Col. Martin about it, and wanted me to witness it. He mentioned one thing in particular, he didn't know whether to make a will or a deed to the place; he says, sometimes a man makes a mistake by making a deed, and he talked on about how he liked to stay with Mrs. Hogan and Fred did, and he said he wanted them to have the place, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Hogan. The only question in his mind was, he didn't know whether to will it to them or make them a deed; he says, sometimes a fellow makes a mistake deeding things away before he dies. * * * In that conversation with me he told me that he wanted Mr. and Mrs. Fred Hogan to have this farm. * * * Yes, I said that Mr. Fill said that he wanted Mr. and Mrs. Fred Hogan to have the farm; he mentioned the farm, he called it the Durham farm. When I was down there looking at the timber they called that the Durham farm. That was where they lived at that time; he (F. M.) was living at that time.'

The testimony of Frank Garland was: 'I knew F. M. (Fill) Hogan during his lifetime. * * * Yes, I have visited his home, or stopped to get a drink of water. * * * While I was there Mr. Hogan discussed some of his business with me. He told me that he heard I had a little lawsuit, or something like that, with reference to a will; and he asked what kind of papers I had to my land, and I told him. As to what he said then, he said he bought that place for Fred and his wife; that that was the trade before they bought it and come down there. That is what he told me. He said he was going to give that place to Fred and Mrs. Hogan. * * * As to who he said the trade was made with, well, he just told me that he bought the place; that was the trade between him and Fred and hiw wife. As to when that happened, I forget now the year, 1935 or 1936. It was over a year before he died. * * * That was the only time he had a conversation with me. * * * Yes, I stated that he said the trade was that they were to take care of him as long as he lived; that was the trade before he bought the place, that they were to take care of him. As to whether or not that was all of the contract, he didn't say anything more about the contract. As to whether or not that is all he told me that they were to take care of him as long as he lived and he would give them the place, he said he bought it for them. He didn't say how or when he would give it to them; he said he bought it for them.'

W. P. Cordell testified: 'Back in 1936 I worked for D. H. Fuller. I went over on the Hogan farm along about that time. I saw F. M. Hogan, the old gentleman. I was cutting some land for them with a tractor. I talked to F. M. Hogan while I was there. * * * As to whether or not he said anything about the buildings and farm, yes, he told me, according to mine and Fred's contract, at my death the place falls back to Fred. * * * He said that the contract between him and Fred was at his death the place fell back to Fred. Yes, that is all he said about the contract. * * * He said, 'I think Fred and his wife are due this place, they are so good to me.' As to whether or not he said that the contract was between him and Fred and was not between him and Fred and his wife, I don't remember whether he said anything about the contract as to her or not. * * * He said that Fred and his wife were entitled to the place, because he said that Fred's wife was so good to him that he felt like the place ought to fall back to him at his death.'

C. B. Climer testified as follows: 'I knew Mr. F. M. Hogan during the latter part of his lifetime. I have talked to him about the farm down there. One day I was down there buying some cattle from him, and I said something about improving the place, and the building of the barn; and he said, yes he wanted to fix it up for Miss Maudie and the rest of them. * * * The only think I heard Mr. Fill say was that he wanted to fix the place up for Miss Maudie and the rest of them; that is the way he spoke it. As to whether or not he said anything about giving them the place, or anything like that: no, not especially.'

Carl Henderson swore: 'I lived on some land adjoining Mr. Bill Hogan. At that time F. M. Hogan lived with Fred Hogan and his wife. * * * I lived up there until 1930. Along about that time (1930) Mr. Fill Hogan talked to me about buying a farm. He said he was getting very old and not able to work and didn't need the farm for himself, and that he was buying it for Fred so he and his brother, Bill, could have a home with Fred--so he told me. * * * The only thing he told me was that he bought the farm so he could have a home with his brother Fred; that is all he said about it. He said he was buying the farm so that he and his brother could have a home; but the way he spoke it, he was buying the farm for Fred so he could have a home with him.'

In recalling a conversation with F. M. Hogan, Reese Ellis testified: 'I knew Mr. F. H. Hogan during his lifetime, Fred's uncle. As to whether or not I talked to him down there at that time, well, I talked to Fred, and he was along. * * * The purpose of their trip down there where I was, was to get me to cut some land, and I arranged to cut some land. * * * The question of who owned the farm came up, and I later talked to Fill Hogan about whose it was; we was down in the field and we were talking about the farm, and I asked him who the farm belonged to, and he says, 'Well, I bought the farm myself,' but says, 'It is Fred's farm at my death; at my death the farm will be Fred's, provided--I think, I don't remember just how he said it--said Fred was supposed to look after him the rest of his life, or give him a home; something like that. He said something about his brother, Fred's father, I think. * * * He said he bought it where he would have a home the rest of his days, and I don't remember how he said it, but anyway he bought the farm where him and his brother would have a home the rest of their days. Yes, he said what the contract was as to who was to have the farm; he said Fred was to have the farm at his death. * * * I think he said Fred and Maude. * * * He just said it was going to Fred and Maude.'

A. N. Hopkins testified: 'I knew Mr. F. M. Hogan when I lived down at Plainville. * * * I went to see him about renting a crop. * * * He said he didn't have anything to do with it, that I would have to see Fred. * * * I was there in 1933 cooking syrup for him, and I heard Mr. Fill Hogan at that time talking about his farm; he told me that he and Fred had shopped all over North Georgia hunting a place to suit Fred. * * * He said why he bought the farm; said he bought it because it suited Fred; that he was buying to suit him. As to whether or not he said anything about what the trade was between him and Fred; no, he didn't say why he had bought it for him or anything, but he just said he bought the one that suited Fred.'

Clarence Yarbrough testified: 'I have heard Mr. Fill Hogan talk about the farm, what was going to be done with it; he said he was getting up in ages and wasn't able to work, and he went down to buy that farm, and said that he got Mr. Fred to go with him, that he didn't have no family and at his death he aimed for them to have the farm. As to who he meant by 'they,' Mr. Fred and his folks, the ones that was seeing after him. Fred's wife and daughter was seeing after him, and sometimes he would have somebody else, some colored girl when they could get somebody.'

W. J. Hopkins, relating a conversation with F. M Hogan, testified: 'I says, 'Grandpa,' (I always called him Grandpa) 'who owns this place, you or Fred?' and he says, 'I own it,' and I says, 'Well, I didn't know; my boy was wanting to trade about making a crop on the place;' and he says, 'Anybody that wants to make a trade of that kind with Fred, whatever Fred does in that line is all right.' He says, 'I have got the deed to the place, and I have got my crippled brother and me here, and if I have got the place at my death I aim for Fred and Maud to have it.' And one of my boys spoke up and says, 'Why don't you make a deed so the trade will stick?' and he says, 'I have got two reasons: one is if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Mickle v. Moore
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1941
    ...such a contract must establish that claim by direct and clear evidence (Morris v. Dunaway, 176 Ga. 881, 169 S.E. 129; Brogdon v. Hogan, 191 Ga. 647, 13 S.E.2d 666); but this requirement was met by the petitioner in the case. This fact is conceded; but the complaint urged is that for the rea......
  • Mickle v. Moore
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1941
    ...such a contract must establish that claim by direct and clear evidence (Morris v. Dunaway, 176 Ga. 881, 169 S.E. 129; Brogdon v. Hogan, 191 Ga. 647, 13 S.E.2d 666); but this requirement was met by the petitioner in the present case. This fact is conceded; but the complaint urged is that for......
  • Salmon v. McCrary
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1944
    ... ... Reagan, 172 Ga. 181, 157 S.E. 478; Wall ... v. Wood, 174 Ga. 508, 163 S.E. 153; Pattillo v ... Mangum, 176 Ga. 51, 166 S.E. 641; Brogdon v ... Hogan, 191 Ga. 647, 654, 13 S.E.2d 666. Proving the ... alleged contract by a preponderance of the evidence is not ... sufficient to ... ...
  • Hogan v. Brogdon
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1942
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT