Gaskins v. Gaskins
| Decision Date | 13 September 1916 |
| Docket Number | 647. |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 1080,145 Ga. 806 |
| Parties | GASKINS v. GASKINS ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It is error to give an instruction unsupported by evidence, and when it is of a character likely to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party, it is cause for a new trial. It is likewise error to instruct the jury that the plaintiff, under given circumstances, would be entitled to recover a money verdict, when there is no prayer for such a recovery.
Where there is an issue whether a conveyance executed by a husband to his wife was made to delay or defraud creditors, there being evidence that there were more creditors than one when the conveyance was made, the court should not so instruct the jury as in effect to limit their consideration to the question as to whether the conveyance was made to delay or defraud one certain creditor. In such a case the jury should be instructed, without request, that if the conveyance was made to delay or defraud any creditor or creditors of the grantor, it will bind him, and will not be set aside at his instance.
The grounds of the motion in which error is assigned upon the refusal of the court to exclude certain evidence are not meritorious. The statement by the court of the respective contentions of the parties is not entirely accurate; but this and the statement of the form of the verdict directed by the court in the event the jury should find for the plaintiff will doubtless be corrected upon another trial.
Error from Superior Court, Berrien County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Action by John B. Gaskins against Docia Gaskins and another. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
In suit by husband to set aside conveyance to his wife, where it was contended that it was made in fraud of creditors, court should not so instruct jury as to limit their consideration to question whether conveyance was made to delay or defraud one certain creditor.
This is an action brought by John B. Gaskins against Docia Gaskins his wife, and W. T. Rigell, Sr., her father. The substance of the petition as amended is to the following effect: The plaintiff in January 1908, owed only one debt, and that to C Strickland. Being unable to pay it, he entered into an agreement with Strickland and the defendants, whereby plaintiff should convey all his property, including 100 acres of described land, to his wife, who was to hold the same until he should pay or be able to pay the indebtedness to Strickland, and thereupon his wife should reconvey the land to plaintiff; and such terms of the agreement should be incorporated in the conveyance to her. Rigell prepared a deed from the plaintiff to his wife, conveying to her his land and fraudulently and falsely represented to plaintiff that it contained the stipulations above set forth as to reconveyance; but in fact the instrument so prepared was in form an unconditional warranty deed with a recital of the payment of $200 as its consideration, and in no way referred to the reconveyance of the property. Plaintiff was illiterate, being unable to read or write, and, reposing full confidence in his father-in-law, he executed such instrument on January 10, 1908, and he did not know that the real agreement was not set out therein, the same not being read to him. During the year 1909, with the consent of the plaintiff and his father-in-law, plaintiff's wife sold the land partly for cash, with notes for the balance of the purchase price. A portion of the money from the sale was invested in a house and lot in which plaintiff and his wife live. At the time of the sale "it was then agreed by and between [plaintiff] and [his wife] that [plaintiff] should have said property with the proceeds therefrom reconveyed to him soon it then being apparent that [plaintiff] would be in position to pay the debt owing to said C. Strickland from the proceeds of sale." Both defendants, who have the cash and notes, refuse to convey to plaintiff the property or to deliver to him the cash and notes. Plaintiff was wholly ignorant of the fact that the deed from him to his wife did not contain the agreement as to reconveyance until a short time prior to the institution of this suit. The prayers were for a reformation of the conveyance from plaintiff to his wife; that defendants be required to convey to plaintiff the house and lot purchased with the proceeds of the sale of the land; "that they be required to pay over and deliver to [plaintiff] the sum of money now on deposit in the bank," part of the proceeds of the sale of the land, "and to pay over and deliver to him said notes, amounting to $1,500 yet unpaid" by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Strickland
...it is cause for a new trial. Culberson v. Alabama Construction Co., 127 Ga. 599(1), 56 S.E. 765, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 411; Gaskins v. Gaskins, 145 Ga. 806(1), 89 S.E. 1080; Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Kontz, 185 Ga. 131(6), 147, 194 S.E. 536; Davis v. State, 190 Ga. 100(4), 8 S.E.2d 394; Arm......
-
Richter v. Atlantic Co.
... ... Atlanta Coach Co., ... 51 Ga.App. 705, 708, 181 S.E. 315; Southern Marble Co. v ... Pinyon, 144 Ga. 259(2), 86 S.E. 1086; Gaskins v ... Gaskins, 145 Ga. 806, 89 S.E. 1080; Central Georgia ... Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. 1(2a), 76 S.E. 387, ... Ann.Cas. 1914A, 880. The ... ...
-
Richter v. Atl. Co
...v. Atlanta Coach Co, 51 Ga.App. 705, 708, 181 S.E. 315; Southern Marble Co. v. Pinyon, 144 Ga. 259(2), 86 S.E. 1086; Gaskins v. Gaskins, 145 Ga. 806, 89 S.E. 1080; Central Georgia Power Co. v. Cornwell, 139 Ga. l(2a), 76 S.E. 387, Ann.Cas. 1914A, 880. The plaintiff contends that this rule i......
-
Anderson v. Barron
...they are cause for a new trial. Culberson v. Alabama Construction Co., 127 Ga. 599, 56 S.E. 765, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 411; Gaskins v. Gaskins, 145 Ga. 806, 89 S.E. 1080. 4. Grounds 11 and 12 of the motion raise substantially the same question. They complain of the court's failure to charge the ju......