City Of Rome v. Shropshire

• Decision Date: 30 October 1900
• Citation: 112 Ga. 93,37 S.E. 168
• Parties: CITY OF ROME. v. SHROPSHIRE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

112 Ga. 93

37 S.E. 168

CITY OF ROME.

v.SHROPSHIRE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 30, 1900.

CONVEYANCE IN TRUST — RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARY—TRESPASS—ACTION BY TRUSTEE.

1. "A conveyance in trust for a woman, married or single, of full age and sound mind, with no remainder to protect, and nothing prescribed for the trustee to do, operates to pass the legal title immediately into the beneficiary; the conveyance being made since the passage of the act of 1866, which secures to women all their property as separate estate. The trust is executed." Sutton v. Aiken, 62 Ga. 733.

2. If, subsequently, the property is damaged by another, the right of action is in the woman named as beneficiary, and not in the trustee. The latter cannot recover for the damage, even though he sue as trustee. If he does so sue, the defect is not amendable, and is, therefore, not cured by verdict.

3. The plaintiff having shown no title to the property alleged to have been damaged, the verdict in his favor was contrary to the evidence.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Floyd county; John Reece, Judge.

Action by W. M. Shropshire, trustee, against the city of Rome. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Nat Harris and Halstead Smith, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. McHenry, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. In January, 1868, a deed was made to Shropshire, as trustee for his wife, Ann Shropshire, conveying certain land in the city of Rome, Ga. In 1899, Shropshire, as trustee for his wife, brought an action for damages against the mayor and council of the city of Rome, alleging that by reason of certain improvements unskillfully made his land had been damaged. He alleged that he held title to the land as trustee for his wife, but did not set out the deed by which such title was acquired. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict in his favor. A motion for a new trial was made by the defendant, and overruled by the court. The defendant excepted.

There are several grounds set out in the motion, alleging error in the rulings of thecourt and in the charge to the jury, but the view we take of the case renders it unnecessary for us to deal with all of them. One of the grounds is that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. It was argued here by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, because the deed offered to prove title in the plaintiff showed title, not in him, but in his wife; and that the right of action was in the wife, and not in the plaintiff, her husband. We think this exception well taken. It has been uniformly held by this court since the ease of Sutton v. Aiken, 62 Ga. 733, that a conveyance to a trustee for the benefit of a married woman of full age and sound mind, with no remainder over, and nothing for the trustee to do, passes the full legal title eo instante into the woman named as beneficiary, under the act of 1860, commonly known as the "Married Woman's Act." See Carswell v. Lovett, 80 Ga. 36, 4 S. E. 866; Lathrop v. White, 81 Ga. 29, 6 S. E. 834; Banks v. Sloat, 69 Ga. 330; Bull v. Walker, 71 Ga. 195; Payton v. Payton, 86 Ga. 773, 13 S. E. 127; Fleming v. Hughes, 99 Ga. 447, 27 S. E. 791; Woodward v. Stubbs, 102 Ga. 187, 29 S. E. 119; Allen v. Hughes, 106 Ga. 775, 32 S. E. 927. Under these decisions the trust was executed the moment the deed was made to Shropshire as trustee for his wife, and the title passed into the wife, she being of full age and sound mind, and there being no remainder over, and nothing for the trustee to do. It is a...