Chastain v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 March 1860 |
| Citation | 30 Ga. 96 |
| Parties | CHASTAIN. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
In Equity, in Fannin Superior Court. Tried before Judge Rice, at October Term, 1859.
This was a bill by Elijah W. Chastain, against Jacob Smith, Henry Smith and George Smith, to compel the specific execution of an agreement relating to the sale and division of a lot of land, situated in the county of Fannin.
The bill alleges, in substance, that complainant and defendants entered into a parol agreement to purchase of one Lovingood a certain lot of land adjoining complainant, and that whichever party should actually buy the land from Lovingood, the same should afterwards be divided so as to give to complainant a certain part adjoining' him, designated by certain lines and courses, etc.; and that for the portion thus received by complainant, he was to pay the sum of $75.
The bill alleges that the Smiths negotiated the sale with Lovingood, and agreed to give him four hundred, dollars for the lot, and that they made valuable improvements on it, but Lovingood refused to carry out the agreement, and they filed their bill against him to enjoin his action of ejectment and to compel him to execute titles agreeably to their agreement. That they succeeded in their bill, and obtained a decree requiring and compelling Lovingood to make titles upon the payment by the Smiths of five hundred dollars. Complain-ant alleges that, being admitted to practice as an attorney at law, soon after this litigation commenced, he rendered valu-able services to the Smiths as an attorney and solicitor in said equity cause, and for which he made no charge, being personally interested in and benefited by said decree as a part owner of the land thus recovered, and his services being by agreement a part of his contribution towards the cause; that his services were worth seventy-five dollars. That defendants, although they have received titles under said decree from Lovingood for said land, refuse to comply with the terms of said agreement, and to make to complainant titles for his portion of said land, and absolutely deny his right to any part thereof. Complainant offers to pay his proportion of the purchase money, and prays that defendants be compelled to execute titles to him for that portion of the lot which by said agreement he was to have.
The case was heard upon bill and answers, and proofs.
The court charged the jury, among other things, that such part performance of this agreement as would entitle complainant to its specific execution must be possession of the premises, payment of the purchase money, and the making of valuable improvements. To which charge complainant excepted.
There were other rulings and charges in the case to which complainant excepted, but as the judgment of the court below is reversed upon the ground of error in the above stated charge, it is unnecessary to insert others upon which no opinion was pronounced.
The jury found for the defendants, and complainant tenders his bill of exceptions, etc.
Wm. Phillips, for D. A. Walker, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Martin, by Ezzard, contra.
By the Court.—Stephens, J., delivering the opinion.
The only question presented in this case is: whether or not the statute of frauds is in the way of the specific performance prayed by Mr. Chastain.
1. In the first place, this case was never within the statute of frauds. The substance of the agreement, so far as that particular part of the land to which Mr. Chastain seeks a title is concerned, is that the Smiths would, air his agent, buy it for him. They did, in fact, buy it, but took a title to themselves. This title in their hands, was immediately af-fected with a resulting trust for his benefit by operation at law. Now, a trust raised, or resulting by operation of law, is expressly excepted from the operation of the statute, and this case, therefore, was not within the statute from the beginning.
2. In the second place, even if the agreement had, at first, been within the statute, we think it was error in the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carkonen v. Alberts, 27115.
...supra, is distinguishable from the case at bar as the supreme court of Florida treated the trust as a resulting trust which, in Chastain v. Smith, supra, the supreme of Georgia said was 'expressly excepted from the operation of the statute.' In Chastain v. Smith, 30 Ga. 96, it was held that......
-
Quinn v. Phipps
... ... 414, 48 Am ... Rep. 640; Bachrach v. Fleming, 269 Pa. 350, 112 A ... 445; Beach v. Wilton, 244 Ill. 413, 91 N.E. 492; ... Wright v. Smith, 23 N. J. Eq. 106; Chastain v ... Smith, 30 Ga. 96. In the last-named case the Georgia ... [113 So. 424] ... of [93 Fla. 819] frauds is ... ...
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...640;Bachrach v. Fleming, 269 Pa. 350, 112 A. 445;Beach v. Wilton, 244 Ill. 413, 91 N.E. 492;Wright v. Smith, 23 N.J.Eq. 106;Chastain v. Smith, 30 Ga. 96. In the last-named case the Georgia statute of frauds is similar to ours, and among other things the court said: “Where one person agrees,......
-
Turner v. Johnson
...to serve even if his services were gratuitous. Dillon v. Anderson, 43 N.Y. 232; Ross v. Houston, 25 Miss. 591; 11 Wall. 256; Chastain v. Smith, 30 Ga. 96-7. (6) The statute of frauds was enacted for the benefit of land-owners, and it is only necessary that the party who at the beginning of ......