Goolsby v. Goolsby

• Decision Date: 15 May 1917
• Docket Number: 400.
• Citation: 92 S.E. 521,146 Ga. 763
• Parties: GOOLSBY v. GOOLSBY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

92 S.E. 521

146 Ga. 763

GOOLSBY v. GOOLSBY.

No. 400.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 15, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

Where one tenant in common brings an equitable action against his cotenants for partition of land and for an accounting of rents, issues, and profits, and a consent decree is taken fixing the rights and liabilities of the parties as between themselves, and decreeing their respective interests in the land, in the further progress of the case, where the decree is not attacked, the parties will not be permitted to go behind the decree so as to reopen the subject. All prior agreements and controversies between the parties, whether such were expressly pleaded or not, are merged in the decree.

Error from Superior Court, Jasper County; J. B. Park, Judge.

Suit for partition and accounting for rents, etc., by B. E Goolsby against C.J. Goolsby and others. Decree for plaintiff against defendant C.J. Goolsby, motion for new trial overruled, and the named defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Where one tenant in common brings suit for partition and an accounting, etc., and a consent decree is taken fixing the rights and decreeing the interests of the parties, they cannot go behind it so as to reopen the matter.

B. E Goolsby filed a petition against C.J. Goolsby and R. C Goolsby for a partition of land and for an accounting of rents, issues, and profits. It was alleged as follows: A large plantation belonging to the grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants was about to be sold, and they were entitled as heirs at law to share in the proceeds of the sale. They entered into an agreement to buy the land as tenants in common. The land was sold and bid in by the plaintiff for himself and the defendants. Each contributed his inheritance towards the purchase price. R. C. Goolsby advanced a large part of the purchase price, and the balance of the money was borrowed. It was agreed between the purchasers that, as long as it was mutually agreeable, the rents, issues, and profits should be applied to making improvements on the land, to paying R. C. Goolsby for his advance on the purchase price, and to discharge the loan; and that C.J. Goolsby was to take charge of the plantation collect the rents and profits, and pay same to R. C. Goolsby and the lender of the borrowed money. Subsequently a loan was procured from the British & American Mortgage Company, from the proceeds of which the former loan was discharged and the latter loan was secured by deed to the land. In pursuance of the agreement, C.J. Goolsby entered into possession and is still in possession; he has made improvements on the land collecting the rents, issues, and profits and applying them to the improvements and to the discharge of the debts due R. C. Goolsby and the British & American Mortgage Company on the land. A controversy arose between plaintiff and defendants as to further improvements upon the land, the plaintiff objecting to further improvements, and the defendants insisting on additional improvements being made and paid for out of the rents, issues, and profits. R. C. Goolsby now insists that petitioner has no title or interest in the land, and that he owns a two-thirds interest, and C.J. Goolsby owns a one-third interest in the land; and the defendants refuse to further account to plaintiff for his share of the rents, issues, and profits. The prayer is that the plaintiff be decreed to own a one-third interest in the land; that R. C. Goolsby be required to account to plaintiff for his share of the rents, issues, and profits; that the amounts of indebtedness due R. C. Goolsby and the British & American Mortgage Company be ascertained, and such amounts...