Eskridge v. Barnwell
| Decision Date | 04 March 1899 |
| Citation | 106 Ga. 587,32 S.E. 635 |
| Parties | ESKRIDGE. v. BARNWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Duebill—Consideration.
A. purchases land from B., and, as part of the consideration therefor, gives a duebill for $100 to C, a creditor of B. The purchase was made subject to taxes and a certain claim, which was secured by deed to the land. The property was afterwards sold under power of sale embodied in this deed, and did not bring the amount of that claim. Held, that a plea of failure of consideration, based upon the fraudulent conduct of B. in not apprising A. of other claims against the property, is not a sufficient defense in an action by C. against A. upon the duebill.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Fulton county; J. H. Lumpkin, Judge.
Action by Lucinda C. Barnwell against A. P. Eskridge. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. A. Anderson, J. A. Noyes, and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiff in error.
L. R. Ray and S. D. Johnson, for defendant in error.
This case originated in a justice's court, and was a suit by Lucinda C. Barnwell against A. P. Eskridge upon the following duebill: The case was appealed to the superior court, and there a demurrer to the defendant's pleas was sustained, the pleas stricken, and a judgment rendered by the court for the plaintiff. To this the defendant excepted. The defendant, by his plea, and the amendments thereto, alleged that the duebill was wholly without consideration; that Sarah A. F. Backus, in her lifetime, was in possession of a certain lot in the city of Atlanta, and before her death made a will leaving the lot, with other property, to her husband, G. F. Backus; that the lot was incumbered during her life by a mortgage or loan deed in favor of a loan company, and that G. F. Backus, the legatee under the will, contracted to sell the defendant this lot representing to the defendant that it was subject only to the loan deed or mortgage, and certain small amounts due for taxes, and contracted to sell the lot, subject to the taxes and the loan deed, for $200, $100 of which was to be paid to plaintiff, and was the consideration of the duebill sued on; that, in attempting to carry out this contract, the duebill was given, but it turned out that the representations of G. F. Backus were false and fraudulent, in that the city lot in question was subject, not only to the loan deed and taxes, but also to a demand for a large amount, in favor of Dr. T. D. Longino, for medical services rendered Mrs. Backus during her last illness, and in consequence of this fact the said Longino applied for letters of administration upon the estate of Mrs. Backus, and was appointed administrator; that the indebtedness of Mrs. Backus to the plaintiff was for wages...
To continue reading
Request your trial