Fields v. Carlton
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 75 Ga. 554 |
| Parties | Fields et al. vs. Carlton et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[COPYRIGHT MATRIAL OMITTED.]
Estates. Ejectment. Remainders. Privity. Administrators and Executors. Husband and Wife. Sales. Attorney and Client. Evidence. Betterments. Equity. Charge of Court. Before D. A. Vason, Esq., Judge pro hac vice. Dougherty Superior Court. April Term, 1885.
Reported in the decision
D. H. Pope; R. F. Lyon, for plaintiffs in error.
Smith & Jones; C. B. Wooten, for defendants.
An action of ejectment was brought by Ida R. Carlton and Lillian Janes against Taylor Fields for the recovery of two city lots on Flint street, in Albany, with the improvements thereon, their title resting on the will of their father, which gave them a remainder estate in all the property he left, after paying his debts. To this suit, Fields filed two pleas, one the general plea of not guilty, and the other an equitable plea, setting up that he is an innocent purchaser for value without notice, and, if not protected by that fact in his title, that he was, at all events, entitled to be protected to the extent of the valuable improvements he had put on the lots since his purchase and possession thereof, under all the facts of the case. On the charge ofthe court, the jury found for plaintiffs the premises in dispute, and thereupon Fields made a motion for a new trial, on many grounds therein stated, which was denied on each and all of them, and on this judgment of the court, error is assigned here.
The facts disclosed by the record are, that the bequest gave all the estate to their mother for life, with remainder to these plaintiffs; that the two lots in Albany sued for in this action had been sold by the testator in his life time to one D. S. Meeds, to whom he gave a bond for titles; that the purchaser. Meeds, went into possession, and put on the lots some buildings of small value; that Mrs. Janes, the mother of plaintiffs and life tenant of all the estate left by her husband, qualified as executrix; that she married one King in 1868, the year after testator's death; that in 1873, King administered, or took out letters of administration on the estate—not letters cum testamento annexe, but general letters; that he, after he was clothed with these letters, bargained with Judge Bower, attorney at law, to reduce to possession all the lands testator claimed, widely scattered over the state, and agreed to give him one-half of those so recovered; that these lands in dispute in this litigation alone were recovered by them; that the notes which Meeds gave for the land were sent to Hines & Hobbs by Bower for collection, and that the result was, by contract and settlement, made by Hines & Hobbs with Meeds, a delivery of the land to the administrator, and of the notes, none of which had been paid, to the purchaser, Meeds; or, as Meeds says, to a cancellation of the trade; or, as Bower and Hobbs testify, to its cancellation, on condition that the two lots, with the shops put on them by Meeds, be sold by the administrator, the notes be paid, and if anything re-mained over of the proceeds of sale, it be paid to Meeds; that the two lots were put up for sale by the administrator, and Bower bought them; that he made a deed to one-half first to King, and then had King to convey to his wife, or relinquish title to her, on his ascertaining that King individually had no interest, the marriage being after 1866, the date of the woman\'s act; that these deeds were made, the two first in 1873, and the other in 1874, and that these three persons—King, Mrs. King and Bower—in 1877, conveyed the lots to Fields; that Fields went into possession, and made valuable improvements amounting to several thousand dollars.
So that the exact legal and equitable rights of the parties are not easily ascertained.
1. It seems, however, clear that the remaindermen took, under the will of their father, only the interest of that father in remainder in the property which he left; the bequest is (after ordering debts paid):
"I will that the remainder of my estate, both real and personal, of any description, go to and belong to my much-beloved wife, Elizabeth C. Janes, during her natural life, and after her death, to descend to my two youngest children, Ida R. Janes and Sarah Lillian Janes, to them and their heirs forever, my other heirs, viz., the heirs of Martha A. Hilsman, Leonidas G. Janes, Selah Bond, Mary J. Gibson, Louisa C. Glass and Sulelisia E. Janes, I have already and heretofore gave [given] each of them more than I am able to give to the youngest ones named, the close of the civil war, and circumstances attending the same, having greatly reduced my worldly affairs."
His interest in these two lots at the time of his death was the right to make the purchase money out of them by getting judgment on the notes Meeds gave him, filing a deed to the land and selling the same under execution on the judgment, together with the improvements thereon, and thus, with the proceeds of sale, pay himself the purchase money, or to sue in ejectment for the land, when Meeds could have filed an equitable plea and brought about the same equitable result. This interest in these lots, therefore, in the end of any litigation to enforce it, is the right to recover the notes for the land out of its sale, with the improvements put on them by Meeds; and Meeds's right was to pay the notes and retain the land, or to sell the land to whomsoever he pleased, and pay what he owed the testator therefor, and retain the balance the land sold for, if it brought him more than what he owed for it.
These plaintiffs took, under their fathers will, in remainder, whatever interest in these lots their father had when ho died, —whatever that interest was. Their father gave them a remainder in all his property. His property, in respect to this transaction with Meeds, was these notes, with his right to recover them out of this land; and their estate in remainder is the same, to-wit, the purchase money, or the notes, for this land, with the right to make that purchase money out of the land.
So that, if Meeds were still in possession of the lots, and they sued him on their mother's death for them, he could set up his equitable right springing out of his bond for titles, and the improvements he had put on the property he bought from their father; or if Meeds had sold the land to another, who had paid him for it, and his grantee had gone into possession and put up valuable improvements thereon, he, too, could set up successfully the same equitable plea.
Therefore, the question here is, what privity is there between Meeds and Fields, who is in possession, who has made valuable improvements on the lots, and who has here an equitable plea to set them off, or to have the land sold and his equities therein estimated and allowed him. The learned judge pro hac vice held that there was none, and upon this view the case was tried and the verdict returned.
It appears to us, after a careful study and close examination of the whole case, that there is privity between Meeds and Bower, one of the grantors of Fields, and there-fore that there is such privity between Meeds and Fields as will enable the latter to set up and sustain equitable rights, which have been ignored on the hearing.
Bower contracted with King, acting as administrator of the testator, to recover the possession of lands stretching from Walker to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcrae v. Boykin
...must write out his charge and read it to the jury. Wheatley & Co. v. West, supra; City Bank of Macon v. Kent, 57 Ga. 283, 285; Fields v. Carlton, 75 Ga. 554, 556; Campbell v. Miller, 38 Ga. 304, 95 Am. Dec. 389; Gray v. Obear, 54 Ga. 231; Fry v. Shehee, supra. As was held in Wheat-ley v. We......
-
In re Estate of Brinckwirth
...settled principle, recognized both by judicial decisions and text-writers. In Fields v. Carlton, decided at the last term of this court, 75 Ga. 554, we held that, where a will been proved in this State, a grant of administration upon the estate was void, and to this effect was the decision ......
-
Brinckwirth's Estate v. Troll
...recognized both by judicial decisions and text-writers. In Fields et al. v. Carlton et al., decided at the last term of this court, 75 Ga. 554, we held that, where a will had been proved in this state, a grant of administration upon the estate was void, and to this effect was the decision o......
-
Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Barker
...in the case of McDaniel v. Gray, 69 Ga. 433, to which we were also referred. A similar state of facts also exists in the case of Fields v. Carlton, 75 Ga. 554, which we were asked also to It must be understood that we are not denying the right of the vendor to maintain an action of ejectmen......