Crummey v. Crummey

• Decision Date: 28 September 1940
• Docket Number: 13378.
• Citation: 10 S.E.2d 859,190 Ga. 774
• Parties: CRUMMEY et al. v. CRUMMEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 S.E.2d 859

190 Ga. 774

CRUMMEY et al. v. CRUMMEY.

No. 13378.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 28, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

1. City courts having no jurisdiction to grant affirmative equitable relief, where a suit is filed in a city court ordinarily 'a court of equity will entertain an application by the defendant to enjoin the proceeding, where it is made to appear that he has such rights in the subject matter of the litigation as require the application of equitable remedies for the grant of full relief.'

2. Where, however, as in this case, the petitioner in the superior court is administratrix of the estate of a decedent in whose name the legal title to the land involved in the city court case was vested at the time of his death, she would be precluded, under the Code, § 38-117, from setting up her claim of equitable title adversely to her trust and duties as administratrix with regard to such land. On this ground the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.

Highsmith & Highsmith, of Baxley, for plaintiffs in error.

Wade H. Watson, of Baxley, for defendant in error.

JENKINS Justice.

1. The superior courts being vested by the constitution with exclusive jurisdiction 'in cases respecting titles to land, and equity cases' (Const. art. 6, § 4, par. 1 Code, § 2-3201), a city court is without jurisdiction of such title matters unless they are merely 'incidentally or collaterally involved' (Black v. Fritz, 98 Ga 32, 33, 25 S.E. 188, 189), or of such equity matters unless they arise 'purely by way of defense, to defeat the establishment of some legal right.' Accordingly, where a suit is filed in a city court, which is 'without jurisdiction to grant affirmative equitable relief, a court of equity will entertain an application by the defendant to enjoin the proceeding, where it is made to appear that he has such rights in the subject-matter of the litigation as require the application of equitable remedies for the grant of full relief'; and in such a case the equity court will grant an injunction and cause the parties to litigate in that court, where full relief can be granted. Butler v. Holmes, 128 Ga. 333, 336, 57 S.E. 715, and cit.; Gentle v. Atlas Savings & Loan Ass'n, 105 Ga. 406, 410, 31 S.E. 544; Callaway v. Martin, 7 Ga.App. 357(1), 358, 66 S.E. 1101. The alleged defense in the city court, involving title to land and establishment of an equitable title by reason of a trust arising from the alleged furnishing of the purchasemoney, raised questions determinable only by the superior court; and therefore the petition in that court by the defendant in the city-court case was not subject to demurrer as failing to show any ground of equitable jurisdiction.

2. However, a trustee or executor cannot, after he has accepted the trust, set up a title 'averse to the trust.' Benjamin v. Gill, 45 Ga. 110, 112; Allen v Solomon, 54 Ga. 483(1), 485. The principle decided in those cases was codified in what is now § 38-117 of the Code. This section provides that 'trustees and other representatives with custody of papers have ample opportunities to discover defects in the title of property in their care, and are estopped from setting up title adverse to their trust.' This rule has been recognized as applicable to administrators, in Harris v. McDonald, 152 Ga. 18, 22, 108 S.E. 448, where it was held that 'an administratrix in possession, and while acting as such, cannot claim adversely to the estate of her intestate.' See, to the same effect, Dozier v. McWhorter, 117 Ga. 786(5), 45 S.E. 61; Hardeman v. Ellis, 162 Ga. 664(4), 683, 686, 135 S.E. 195; Gammage v. Perry, 29 Ga.App. 427(1, 2), 431, 116 S.E. 126; Caswell v. Vanderbilt, 35 Ga.App. 34, 37, 132 S.E. 123. In Murphy v. Vaughan, 55 Ga. 361, 364(2); Williams v. Wheaton, 86 Ga. 223, 225, 12 S.E. 634, and Wright v. Thompson, 190 Ga. 173, 8 S.E.2d 640, this rule of estoppel was recognized, but was held inapplicable under their facts. There is nothing inimical in the principle that under the Code, § 113-1202, an heir, next of kin, or creditor is favored in the appointment of an administrator, and is not precluded from receiving his proper share or claim from the assets of the estate, since such a claim does...