Hall v. Spivey

• Decision Date: 30 September 1880
• Parties: Hall, administrator. v. SpivEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

65 Ga. 694

Hall, administrator. v. SpivEY.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(September Term, 1880.)

Verdict. New trial. Claim. Parties. Before Judge Law-son. Greene Superior Court. March Term, 1880.

Reported in the decision.

C Heard; P. B. Robinson, for plaintiff in error.

M. W. Lewis & Sons, for defendant.

CRAWFORD, Justice.

The plaintiff in error as the administrator of R. B. Armor obtained leave to sell certain lands as the property of *his intestate, which were claimed by Mrs. E. J. Spivey.

In her affidavit she sets forth that the intestate, who was her father, had executed to her a deed to 1, 000 acres of the land sought to be sold and known as the home place, in January, 1878, and which deed having been lost he made her another in the December following. That in consequence of the dissatisfaction prevailing with the members of the family after the death of her father, she agreed to accept two hundred and fifty acres of another tract of land to which her sisters claimed title, in consideration also that her mother, the widow, would relinquish all claims and interest in the two tracts; then she was to make her mother a deed to the land conveyed toher by her father, all of which has been done by her in pursuance of the agreement.

But the mother, notwithstanding the agreement and the deed, has refused to abide by the same, and in violation thereof has claimed dower in both places. Wherefore affiant prays that her mother, Mary S. Armor, may be made a party to the suit, and that a decree be rendered against her requiring her to deliver up the deed to the aforesaid home place, which she had made to her, to be canceled, as the same cast a cloud on her title, and the cancellation of which is necessary to her protection. She further prays that the copy deed attached as an exhibit to her claim affidavit may be established in lieu of the original deed.

After the introduction of the testimony and charge of the court, the case was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict for the claimant, reserving dower for Mrs. Mary S. Armor, and requiring her to deliver up the deed from claimant to her for cancellation.

The plaintiff in error moved to set aside the verdict, and that a new trial be granted:

1. Because the verdict is contrary to law.

2. Because the verdict is contrary to evidence.

The judge upon hearing the motion overruled it, and this judgment is assigned as error. *Under the facts presented in the record then, the question is, was the verdict...