F. S. Royster Guano Co v. Odum, (No. 6463.)

• Decision Date: 17 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 6463.)
• Citation: 167 Ga. 655,146 S.E. 475
• Parties: F. S. ROYSTER GUANO CO. v. ODUM.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

167 Ga. 655

146 S.E. 475

F. S. ROYSTER GUANO CO.

v.ODUM.

(No. 6463.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 17, 1929.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; J. Saxton Daniel, Judge.

Execution by the F. S. Royster Guano Company against property of another, to which R. N. Odum, administrator, filed a claim. Judgment for claimant, plaintiff's motion fornew trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

A married woman owned land on which she and her husband resided and cultivated a farm. In 1909 the wife executed to her husband a warranty deed purporting to convey the land for a valuable consideration. The deed was duly recorded. Thereafter the man and his wife continued to occupy and cultivate the farm, and it was customary for the wife to sign notes for fertilizers to be used on the farm. In February, 1920, the man went to the place of business of an agent of a fertilizer company and asked the agent, "How about fertilizers for this year?" The agent thereupon delivered the man certain fertilizers, without any written contract or anything further said as to whom the goods were sold. In May following, the agent went out to the home of the man, carrying a bill for the goods made out against the woman, and a promissory note prepared in blank to be signed for the fertilizers. These papers were handed to the man, who took them in the house to be signed. He returned and handed the note to the agent, who carried it to his place of business and put it in his files'. In June, while making settlement with his principal, the agent discovered that the note was signed by the man and not by the woman. As a matter of fact the agent intended all the time to sell to the woman and not to the man, because the name of the woman, and not the name of the man was on a list of names furnished the agent by his principal, as persons' to whom credit could be extended. The woman's name was placed on the list, because the company believed that she was owner of the land. Upon discovery that the woman's name was not signed to the note, the agent carried it back to the man, made statements to him as indicated above, and demanded a note by his wife, saying that he would have to have the note of the owner of the land. The man replied that he did not see why—that his note was perfectly good. They went into the house, where the matter was explained to the woman in the presence of the man. The woman said, "I don't see why I should not sign the note, as I have always signed notes for our fertilizers." Thereupon she signed a new note, and the first note was canceled by the agent and delivered to the man. In...