Federal Farm Mortg. Corp. v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 13 January 1938
• Docket Number: 12020.
• Citation: 195 S.E. 414,185 Ga. 466
• Parties: FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. DIXON et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

195 S.E. 414

185 Ga. 466

FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. DIXON et al.

No. 12020.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 13, 1938

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1938.

Error from Superior Court, Wilkinson County; James B. Park, Judge.

Ejectment suit by the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation against T. A Dixon and another. To review a judgment for defendant plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

G. Stokes Walton, of Columbia, S. C., and Victor Davidson, of Irwinton, for plaintiff in error.

R. Earl Camp and Lester F. Watson, both of Dublin, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

JENKINS Justice.

Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation sued in ejectment the grantor under a deed to secure debt and a third person in possession of land, basing its claim of title on the security deed and a deed executed to it by virtue of a power of sale in the security deed. The third person pleaded that he had made a contract to purchase the property from the plaintiff, through its salesman and agent, for $2,250, $450 in cash, and the balance $90 a year for 20 years, the terms of this contract to be later effected by a warranty deed from the plaintiff and a deed to secure debt from the defendant; that on making the cash payment this defendant took possession 'breaking the lands, sowing oats, * * * purchased material for the repair and improvement of the buildings, * * * and is now growing and cultivating crops on said premises upon the faith of said sale,' all 'at an expense of approximately $500 besides the cash payment on the purchase-money.' The judge, by agreement trying the case without a jury, found for the defendant and decreed specific performance. The undisputed evidence showed that legal title was in the plaintiff; that on November 2, 1936, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff a signed written offer to purchase the land on the terms alleged in the plea; and that a bank check to cover the $450 cash deposit was delivered to the plaintiff and was paid on November 7, 1936. No fraud in the procurement or execution of the written offer was shown. It contained these provisions: 'In the event a contract of purchase and sale of the premises is not consummated between offerer and the bank, the cash portion of the purchase-price paid to or deposited with the bank shall be returned to offerer. Collection by the bank of any check, draft, or other form of remittance deposited with the bank shall not be construed as an acceptance of this offer to purchase. * * * The acceptance by the bank of this offer to purchase * * * must be in writing and to be binding on the bank or the corporation, the title to the premises must be approved by the bank's legal department. The bank's acceptance of this offer to purchase, * * * to be valid, must be approved by the executive committee of the bank, or by one member of the executive committee of the bank and such other person as may be designated and empowered by resolution of the board of directors or of the executive committee of the bank.' The writing bore the entry, 'Approved by Executive Committee--Nov. 9, 1936--A. R. Murray,' which was crossed out with pencil mark; also the entry, 'Reconsidered and rejected--Miss A. R. Murray, Minute Clerk--Date Nov. 17, 1936.' There was nothing to show that before the entry rejecting the offer the alleged purchaser was informed that the executive committee had made the entry of approval on the written offer or had approved it; and there was never any communication from the alleged vendor to the alleged purchaser that the offer had been accepted. In the first communication on November 24, 1936, after the offer, the alleged vendor wrote to the offerer that his offer had been 'rejected [by the executive officers] for the reason that another offer to purchase had been accepted.' In reply, on November 27 and 30, the offerer wrote to the alleged vendor, stating the contentions made in the verified plea; that he had made an agreement with two agents of the alleged vendor to purchase the land, had made the $450 cash payment; that they told him 'I had purchased it, * * * that I could consider the trade closed'; and that he went into possession as alleged. It was not made to appear that the alleged agents acted or assumed to act under or by virtue of any action by the executive committee in approving the offer before their rejection and communication of such rejection to...