Ham v. Ham, 27392
| Decision Date | 05 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27392,27392 |
| Citation | 195 S.E.2d 429,230 Ga. 43 |
| Parties | Brightie B. HAM et al. v. William J. HAM. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Allen, Edenfield, Brown & Franklin, Charles H. Brown, Statesboro, John R. Harvey, Pembroke, Alfred Dan Fears, Jackson, for appellants.
Sullivan & Hawkins, Rudolph Sullivan, W. Ashley Hawkins, Forsyth, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellants-defendants made a motion for summary judgment below which was denied by the trial judge. However, a certificate for immediate review was granted.
The sole issue for decision on appeal is the correctness or incorrectness of the judgment denying the motion for summary judgment.
This case involves a contest between the executors of the estates of two brothers, V. H. Ham who died November 17, 1966 and N. L. Ham who died May 4, 1970. The contest involves the ownership of two tracts of land in Butts County, Georgia. It is conceded that record title to the two tracts of land is in N. L. Ham.
In 1971, the executor of the estate of V. H. Ham brought an action against the executors of the estate of N. L. Ham (appellants-defendants) seeking ejectment and a decree placing title to the two tracts of land in the executor of the estate of V. H. Ham.
Appellants filed responsive pleadings and their motion for summary judgment.
The summary-judgment evidence in support of N. L. Ham's ownership of the two tracts in question consisted of facts taken from the real estate records of Butts County showing all real estate transactions made by N. L. Ham during his lifetime and showing that at the time of his death record title to the two tracts in question was vested in him; also supporting N. L. Ham's ownership was an authenticated statement of V. H. Ham furnished on January 6, 1961 to agents of the Compliance and Investigation Division, Commodity Stabilization Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture which, in part, read as follows:
The summary-judgment evidence in support of V. H. Ham's ownership was as follows: V. H. Ham paid the total purchase price for both tracts of land in question; while N. L. Ham was the grantee in the deeds to both tracts, V. H. Ham retained possession of both deeds during his lifetime; the executor of the estate of V. H. Ham still has possession of said deeds; V. H. Ham farmed the two tracts during his lifetime, retained all income from the two tracts as his own, did not pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, Inc.
...on its part, with all doubts and conflicts in the evidence being resolved in favor of the plaintiff. See generally Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973). Sealy v. Western Broadcasting, 168 Ga.App. 493, 495, 309 S.E.2d 633 Although the plaintiff-appellant in the present case was ......
-
Cunningham v. National Service Industries, Inc., 69923
...case (Vizzini v. Blonder, 165 Ga.App. 840, 303 [174 Ga.App. 839] S.E.2d 38) which would defeat plaintiff's action. Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429. A movant defendant has the burden even as to issues upon which the plaintiff would have at trial. Id. The trial court erred in grant......
-
Lane v. Tift County Hosp. Authority
...the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden." Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973); see also Sawgrass Builders v. Key, 212 Ga.App. 138, 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994); Huntington v. Fishman, 212 Ga.App. 27, 29-31, 441......
-
First Rome Bank v. Reese Oil Co., Inc.
...papers are carefully scrutinized, while the [opponent's] papers, if any, are treated with considerable indulgence.' Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45 (195 SE2d 429) (1973)." First Union Nat. Bank v. J. Reisbaum Co., 190 Ga.App. 234, 235, 378 S.E.2d 317 (1989). Reese Oil had the burden of piercing ......