Davis v. Newton, 21268
| Decision Date | 06 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21268,21268 |
| Citation | 217 Ga. 75,121 S.E.2d 153 |
| Parties | Versie Pearl DAVIS, Executrix, et al., v. Marguerite Dunson NEWTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Since the verdict was amply supported by evidence and no error of law was committed on the trial, the judgment refusing a new trial is not erroneous.
Stephens, Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
Larry V. McLeod, Athens, for defendant in error.
The nature of this litigation may be readily ascertained from the opinion this court filed on its prior appearance. See Davis v. Newton, 215 Ga. 58, 108 S.E.2d 809. The first trial of this case, as well as the one now under review, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff and on each such verdict title to the land involved was decreed to be in the plaintiff, and the defendants were permanently enjoined from interfering in any way with her ownership of the property involved. On a review of the first trial, this court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, but a new trial was ordered solely because of the court's failure to charge on the defense of laches, which was raised by both the pleadings and the evidence. On both trials the evidence was in all material respects substantially the same, and the defendants being dissatisfied with the second verdict moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds and by amendment added certain special grounds, in which they complain about different portions of the court's charge and of the failure to give a particular charge. Their amended motion was denied and the exception is to that judgment. Since this case involves a transaction which allegedly occurred during the latter part of April 1936 between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, and since the same of each has subsequently changed (the daughter-in-law's once, and the mother-in-law's three times), we will, whenever it is necessary to do so, refer to the former as 'Mrs. Newton' and to the latter as 'Mrs. Dunson'.
The evidence in this case shows that Mrs. Dunson purchased the property involved from Mrs. Ester Goldwasser on January 23, 1935, for $1,000. She paid $500 on the purchase price and gave Mrs. Goldwasser a note for $500, due 3 years after date with interest from date at 7% per annum, payable semi-annually for the unpaid part of the purchase price. She gave Mrs. Goldwasser a deed to the property so purchased, as security for the payment of her note. The note provided that, if the interest was not paid as it matured, the entire obligation would become due and payable on such default. She defaulted in the payment of interest, and the note was placed in the hands of an attorney for collection. Suit was brought on the note in the City Court of Clarke County, and by the proceeding she sought and prayed for a special lien against the property. While such suit was pending and during the latter part of April 1936, Mrs. Dunson approached Mrs. Newton, her daughter-in-law, and stated to her that, because of her natural love and affection for her and in order to avoid the expense and embarrassment of the pending suit, she would give the property to her. Mrs. Newton promptly accepted the gift, and pursuant to the terms of Mrs. Dunson's offer, she borrowed $550 from her father-in-law and paid it to Mrs. Dunson. With such funds, Mrs. Dunson paid her note to Mrs. Goldwasser in full. The paid note was delivered to Mrs. Dunson, the deed given to secure its payment was canceled of record, and the suit against Mrs. Dunson was dismissed. During 1937 or 1938, W. A. Cooper tried to purchase the property involved from Mrs. Dunson, who told him that it did not belong to her but belonged to Mrs. Newton. Under the claim of ownership which she acquired from Mrs. Dunson, Mrs. Newton made permanent improvements on the property involved from the latter part of April 1936 until 1940, at a cost of approximately $3,000. She bought cattle in 1936 and placed them in a small pasture on the farm, and during the same year she had laborers begin clearing and fencing more land on the farm for pasturage, and continued to do so until 1940, at which time she had approximately 20 acres under fence for her cattle. She kept her cattle in the pasture until 1952 or 1953. The house, barn, and outbuildings were wired for electricity at a cost to her of approximately $300. She had the house painted on the inside and outside for the first time. She had the house screened, underpinned, and the foundations braced with rock pillars, and fenced the back yard. The front and back steps were rebuilt at her expense. She added a room and porch to the house and planted shrubbery. A new barn was built in 1939 or 1940 at a cost to her of $1,500, and it was partly reroofed by her in 1949. Mrs. Dunson and her husband moved away from the farm in 1937 or 1938 and lived on his daughter's farm until his death; after that, Mrs. Dunson moved to a rented room in Athens. She moved every month or two, returning to the farm and then going back to town. In 1938 Mrs. Newton rented the farm to the Paynes for a year. In 1940 Mrs. Newton, her husband, and her mother moved to the land involved and lived there about a year and a half. For the years 1941 and 1942, Mrs. Newton rented the house on the farm to H. O. Beussee for $20 per month, and the rent was paid to her. Mrs. Dunson on February 17, 1947, obtained from her husband a quitclaim deed to the property in controversy, which was filed for record on May 2, 1947. After 1947 a Mrs. Osborne talked to Mrs. Dunson about renting the house, Mrs. Dunson told her that she would have to discuss the proposition of renting it with Mrs. Newton. Mrs. Osborne later rented the house from Mrs. Newton and paid the rent to her during 1948, 1949, and 1950. Mrs. Osborne's son took care of the cattle which Mrs. Newton kept on the farm while the Osbornes had it rented and Mr. Osborne made repairs to the barn, steps, and pasture fence for Mrs. Newton. Mrs. Newton kept the property in repair, maintained a telephone there, added at her expense necessary improvements from 1936 to 1957, and the soil bank contract was in her name. Mrs. Newton consented for Mrs. Dunson to borrow money and give liens on the property involved after she acquired her interest in it because Mrs. Dunson was on 'welfare' Mrs. Dunson was living on the land at the time of her death, but Mrs. Newton at that time had household furniture stored on the premises.
1. The evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict; hence, the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not meritorious.
2. On the trial of this case the judge charged verbatim Code § 37-119, which provides: 'Equity gives no relief to one whose long delay renders the ascertainment of the truth difficult, though no legal limitation bars the right.' It is alleged in special ground 7 of the motion that the court, after charging this Code section, erred in also charging: It is alleged that this instruction was erroneous, because (a) it was confusing and misleading in referring to the decision of the Supreme Court as 'the law of the case'; (b) it was prejudicial to the defendants in giving undue judicial emphasis to the principle adjudicated by the Supreme Court; and (c) it deprived the defendants of the defense of laches. Special ground 8 alleges that the court in charging on laches also erred in stating to the jury that 'Our Supreme Court in [City of McRae v. Folsom] Volume 191 [at page] 286 held: 'The rule as to laches should work both ways. If both parties are equally to blame for the delay, neither should be allowed to invoke the rule in order to gain an advantage over his adversary.'' With respect to this portion of the charge, it is alleged that it was erroneous and injurious to the defendants, because (a) it was not supported by any issue or evidence in the case; (b) it was argumentative against the defense of laches; and (c) it intimated an opinion that the defense of laches involved some improper advantage and should be questioned. Neither of these grounds of the motion show any sufficient reason for reversing the judgment denying a new trial in the instant case. Each complained-of portion of the charge stated a correct principle of law, which was adjusted both to the pleadings and to the evidence which the parties introduced on the trial respecting possession of the property involved during the period from the latter part of April 1936 until the death of Mrs. Dunson on April 25, 1957, and since the charge as a whole correctly instructed the jury on the defense of laches, these grounds are not meritorious. However, it is the better practice, we think, for the trial judge to charge the law applicable to the case on trial without making specific reference to the holding in any particular case of this or any other appellate court on such question. See 53 Am.Jur. 433, § 543, and 88 C.J.S. Trial § 337(c), p. 887, and the citations on which the authors based their statements.
3. It is alleged in another special ground of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State, 42671
...Bus Lines, Inc., 140 Ga.App. 863, 864, 232 S.E.2d 143 (1977), which is an oversimplification of a charge approved in Davis v. Newton, 217 Ga. 75(3), 121 S.E.2d 153 (1961). In any event, the jury found that the defendant and his daughter were successfully contradicted as to material matters,......
-
Byrd v. Shelley, No. A06A0792.
...as in each case there was some evidence of possession sufficient to sustain a finding of actual possession. Davis v. Newton, 217 Ga. 75, 76-77, 121 S.E.2d 153 (1961); Chamblee v. Johnson, 200 Ga. 838, 38 S.E.2d 721 (1946) (using property for camping and a summer home and building rock wall ......
-
Kenner v. Kenner, 22727
...had made them. Mitchell v. Gunter, 170 Ga. 135, 146, 152 S.E. 466; Chamblee v. Johnson, 200 Ga. 838(2), 38 S.E.2d 721; Davis v. Newton, 217 Ga. 75, 82(6), 121 S.E.2d 153. 4. Grounds 3 and 4 of the amended motion for new trial assign as error the admission of certain evidence. 'Where a speci......
- Porter v. Watkins