Handy v. Handy

• Decision Date: 15 December 1922
• Docket Number: 3281.
• Citation: 115 S.E. 114,154 Ga. 686
• Parties: HANDY v. HANDY ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

115 S.E. 114

154 Ga. 686

HANDY v. HANDY ET AL.

No. 3281.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 15, 1922

Syllabus by the Court.

Mamie Handy brought an action against her husband, George Handy for partition of described land, alleging that she owned a one-half undivided interest in the land, and that the defendant was the owner of the other one-half interest. The defendant filed an answer, denying that the plaintiff had any interest in the land, alleging that she was a stranger to the title and had never had any interest in the property; that the property was bought by him with money of his former wife Annie Handy, and that the title to the same was taken in the name of the respondent, his former wife, deceased, and their children; that at the time of the purchase of the land he intended the title to be conveyed to himself and the children of his former wife, and never intended that Mamie Handy, his present wife, should have any interest therein. On the trial the plaintiff introduced a deed from "Elam A. Balkcom to George Handy, his wife, Annie Handy, and their children," of Bibb county, conveying the tract of land sought to be partitioned. It was agreed by the parties that George Handy and Annie Handy were married and living together as man and wife until about 1912, at which time Annie Handy the former wife of George Handy, died; that subsequently, in the year 1916 or thereafter, George Handy was intermarried with one Mamie Handy; that there has been no other marriage by George Handy; that the property was purchased atter the death of Annie Handy and after the marriage of George to Mamie Handy; that George and Mamie had been separated about four months prior to the trial; that there was no issue of their marriage; and that three children, the issue of the marriage between George and Annie Handy, are now living, and were living at the time of the execution of the deed. These children were defendants, and were represented by guardians ad litem. The plaintiff offered parol evidence of the real estate agent, who closed the transaction with the defendant for the land, tending to show that at the time of the trade and prior thereto the plaintiff "wanted her name incorporated in there [the deed], and he [defendant] was slow about doing it." The court, on objection, rejected the evidence, and the plaintiff assigned error on the ruling. The plaintiff offered the further evidence of the same witness to the effect that "at the time of the execution of the deed, by direction of George Handy, the title to the property was to be in his wife, then living, and himself and children." This evidence, on objection, was disallowed and the plaintiff assigned error. The plaintiff offered to testify as follows: "That she gave her husband, George Handy, $200 on the purchase-price of this property, and that the said George Handy told her that he would not put her name in the deed as Mamie Handy, for the reason that he had one child named Mamie, and that he would call her Annie for the purpose of making the deed, which agreement...