Crooke v. Property Management Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20584,20584 |
| Citation | 215 Ga. 410,110 S.E.2d 677 |
| Parties | Mary Sewell CROOKE et al. v. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, James W. Dorsey, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Property Management Services, Incorporated filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against Mrs. Mary Sewell Crooke et al. The contract which is the basis of the suit provided in substance that the defendant in error, under the terms of the contract, had the option to buy described lands at a fixed price within a period of 14 months from the date of the contract. This property was described as unit 1. The contract further provided that, in the event the option above referred to was exercised, the defendant in error had an option to purchase seven additional tracts of land known as units 2 through 8. The completion of the second step as provided in the option contract was to be within a period of 12 months, and then gave to the defendant in error the right to proceed with the purchase of units 3 through 8, each at a fixed price and to be exercised in each instance within a period of 12 months. The petition alleged that the option in so far as unit 1 is concerned had been exercised and the possession of the property delivered to the defendant in error; that, within the period of time provided in the contract, the defendant in error had tendered to the plaintiffs in error the full purchase price for unit number 2, and the plaintiffs in error had refused the tender and refused to comply with the terms of the contract. The description of unit 2 as contained in the contract reads as follows: 'In consideration of making such initial purchase, sellers further agree to grant a continuing option to buyer, or assigns, to purchase at acreage price not to exceed $1,425.00 per acre ten (10) additional adjoining acres, more or less, to the north of said Unit 1 and to be known as United II of the Sewell Estate shown by plat by Watts and Browning, Engineers, dated September 29, 1956, herewith attached, Providing the aforesaid first unit is completely paid for within fourteen (14) months after the closing of said Unit I. See Plat Book 15, Page 46, Cobb County Records.'
A general demurrer to the petition was overruled and the exception here is to that judgment. Held:
1. The plaintiffs in error state the questions to be decided in the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reidling v. Holcomb
...as the legal description, such incorporated plat has the effect as if it were written out in the deed. Crooke v. Property Mgmt. Svcs., 215 Ga. 410, 110 S.E.2d 677 (1959); Westbrook v. Comer, 197 Ga. 433, 29 S.E.2d 574 (1944); Hardy v. Brannen, 194 Ga. 252, 21 S.E.2d 417 OCGA § 23-1-17 provi......
-
In re Kim, Case No. 06-66024-CRM (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1/9/2008)
...as if part of the document making the reference." Id at 95. As further support, Defendant relies on Crooke v. Prop. Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 251 Ga. 410, 412, 110 S.E.2d 677, 678 (1959), in which the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a separate description of land could be incorporated into a de......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gordon (In re Codrington)
...Bowman v. Walnut Mountain Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 251 Ga.App. 91, 553 S.E.2d 389 (2001), and Crooke v. Property Management Services, Inc., 215 Ga. 410, 110 S.E.2d 677 (1959), which all discuss the incorporation of the contents of one document into another, rather than citing cases wher......
-
Hendricks v. Hendricks
... ... , plus $100 attorney fees, and for the personal property in possession of the mother to remain in her possession for ... ...