Dumas v. Dumas
| Decision Date | 14 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16586. |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 845,205 Ga. 238 |
| Parties | DUMAS et al. v. DUMAS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Claud F. Brackett and R. B. Pullen, both of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Frank Grizzard and Frank Morrison, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where the consideration recited in a deed is 'one dollar, furnishing grantor a home, food, medicine, doctor's bills, hospitals bills, burial expenses, and all the other necessities of life during grantor's lifetime,' and the grantee has failed and refused to furnish the grantor the specified items, ordinarily the remedy of the grantor would be an action for damages. Code, § 85-902; Brinson v. Hester, 185 Ga. 761, 762, 196 S.E. 412.
(a) The grantor may maintain an equitable action to rescind the contract if the grantee is insolvent, Lindsey v. Lindsey, 62 Ga. 546; Wyatt v. Nailer, 153 Ga. 72(4), 111 S.E. 419; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 158 Ga. 899, 124 S.E. 722; Burkhalter v. De Loach, 171 Ga. 384, 155 S.E. 513; or where fraud is employed by the grantee in the procurement of the deed, or there are other special facts which would make rescission by the grantor an appropriate relief. Wood v. Owen, 133 Ga. 751, 752(3), 66 S.E. 951; Morris v. Fain, 165 Ga. 879, 881, 142 S.E. 119.
2. An allegation that the defendants are insolvent is not a conclusion of the pleader, but an allegation of an ultimate fact. Schneider v. Smith, 189 Ga. 704, 706(5), 7 S.E.2d 76. The allegation in this case, that 'the defendants have not sufficient property above their homestead exemptions of realty and personalty allowed by existing laws to respond to the recovery in any judgment that petitioner may obtain against them in this behalf,' is insufficient to allege insolvency of the defendants.
3. Since the petition does not allege insolvency, and no special facts are pleaded to entitle the grantor to the relief of cancellation, the court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. Elrod
...or other equitable grounds.' Brinson v. Hester, 185 Ga. 761(1), 196 S.E. 412; Schneider v. Smith, 189 Ga. 704, 7 S.E.2d 76; Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238, 52 S.E.2d 845; Cordell v. Cordell, 206 Ga. 214, 56 S.E.2d 251; Bolton v. Morris, 209 Ga. 153, 71 S.E.2d 217; Prosser v. Brooks, 210 Ga. 76......
-
Campbell v. Hammock
...the billboard was erected solely for a malicious purpose and did not serve a useful purpose, as contended by petitioners. Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238(2), 52 S.E.2d 845; Bolton v. Morris, 209 Ga. 153(2), 71 S.E.2d 217; Prosser v. Brooks, 210 Ga. 763(2), 82 S.E.2d 700. Furthermore, said alleg......
-
Bolton v. Morris, 17863
...Kennedy, 92 Ga. 198, 17 S.E. 1001; Wood v. Owen, 133 Ga. 751(3), 66 S.E. 951; House v. House, 191 Ga. 678, 13 S.E.2d 817; Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238(1), 52 S.E.2d 845. 2. Where the consideration of a deed is a promise by the grantee to support the grantor, a breach by the grantee does not ......
-
Dumas v. Dumas, 17046
...for defendant in error. Syllabus Opinion by the Court. DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice. 1. Before the remittitur of this court, Dumas v. Dumas, 205 Ga. 238, 52 S.E.2d 845, became the judgment of the court below, the petitioner amended the petition to allege insolvency. The ruling there--that the a......