Fairburn Banking Co. v. Summerlin

• Decision Date: 13 August 1915
• Docket Number: 512.
• Parties: FAIRBURN BANKING CO. v. SUMMERLIN ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

85 S.E. 1007

144 Ga. 31

FAIRBURN BANKING CO. v. SUMMERLIN ET AL.

No. 512.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 13, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

There was no complaint that any error of law was committed on the trial. The only question dealt with in brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is decided in the following notes.

The mere fact that the purchaser at an administrator's sale was the son of the administrator was not of itself sufficient to render the sale void. Such relationship was a circumstance which could be considered, in connection with other facts and circumstances, in determining whether the sale was collusive and fraudulent. Cain v. McGeenty, 41 Minn. 194, 42 N.W. 933.

The reasoning in the cases of Lowery v. Idleson, 117 Ga. 778, 45 S.E. 51, and Broadhurst v. Hill, 137 Ga. 833(3), 839, 74 S.E. 422, wherein it was held that an administrator could not sell to his wife and an administratrix could not sell to her husband, does not apply with equal force in the case of a sale by an administrator to his son.

The evidence did not require a finding that the administrator's sale was fraudulent.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; W. D. Ellis, Judge.

Action by the Fairburn Banking Company against Homer Summerlin, administrator, and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. H. Longino, of Fairburn, and J. F. Golightly, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Colquitt & Conyers and J. P. Haunson, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

ATKINSON, J.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.