Finch v. Woods

• Decision Date: 20 July 1901
• Citation: 39 S.E. 418,113 Ga. 996
• Parties: FINCH. v. WOODS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

39 S.E. 418

113 Ga. 996

FINCH.

v.WOODS.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 20, 1901.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE—BONA FIDE PURCHASER—EVIDENCE.

1. In order "to sustain a voluntary conveyance against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, notice to the purchaser must be actual, " and the "registration of the conveyance is not such notice as will deprive" such bona fide purchaser of the preference to which he is entitled.

2. Applying the rule above announced to the facts of the present case, the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but ought to have directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Bulloch county; B. D. Evans, Judge.

Action by Martha A. Woods against D. G. Finch. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Moore & Deal, for plaintiff in error.

H. B. Strange, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. Martha A. Woods brought an action against Finch to recover possession of a described parcel of land. At the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant made a motion for a new trial. The motion having been overruled, he excepted. Both parties claimed under Madison Woods as a common grantor. The plaintiff relied upon a deed from Madison Woods which conveyed to her a life estate, with remainder to her children, dated November 4, 1875, recorded November 10, 1875, and reciting a consideration of $5 and natural love and affection; the grantee being the wife of the grantor. The defendant claimed under a warranty deed from Madison Woods to him dated January 27, 1899, recorded February 3, 1899, and reciting a consideration of $1,127. The plaintiff testified that her husband bought the land about 30 years ago, and that he deeded it to her. She further testified: "I did not buy it from him. He just deeded it to me. I never paid him anything for it, but I helped to pay for the land. I never paid him any consideration at the time this deed was made, any more than I helped to pay for the land." The defendant testified that he paid full value for the land, that the plaintiff was present when he bought it from her husband, that he did not know that she had any claim upon the land, and that he never knew of the existence of the deed from Madison Woods to his wife and children until some time in July or August, 1899, after he had bought the land. It is not necessary to determine in the present case whether a deed which recites as a consideration to support it love and affection and a nominal sum of money is a voluntary conveyance. Some courts hold that if there is a valuable consideration, no matter how trivial or inadequate, the conveyance is not voluntary, while other courts hold that a merely nominal money consideration will not save the deed from being classified as voluntary. See Bump, Fraud. Conv. (4th Ed., by Gray) § 238, and notes; also notes to Hagerman v. Buchanan (N. J. Eq.) 14 Am. St Rep. 739 (s. c. 17 Atl. 946). A deed which purports to be founded upon a valuable consideration can be shown to have been based either upon...