Hanley v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17670,17670 |
| Citation | 68 S.E.2d 581,208 Ga. 585 |
| Parties | HANLEY et al. v. SAVANNAH BANK & TRUST CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
If a part of the consideration of a contract is illegal and void, as being against public policy, the contract is not enforceable.
A petition was filed by Mrs. Sarah Hanley and others, in Chatham Superior Court, against Savannah Bank & Trust Company of Savannah, as executor of the will of Mrs. Elizabeth Walker Comer, deceased, seeking specific performance of an alleged parol contract to make a will devising the entire estate of the deceased to the petitioners. The consideration of the contract was alleged to be the surrender by Mrs. Hanley of her infant daughter to the husband of Mrs. Comer, and the rendering of certain personal services to Mrs. Comer and her mother.
The trial court overruled a general demurrer to the petition, which judgment was reversed by this court. Before the remittitur from this court was made the judgment of Chatham Superior Court, the petitioners filed an amendment to their petition. The defendant filed objections to the allowance of the amendment, and the amendment was disallowed. Thereafter a judgment on the remittitur was entered, and the case dismissed.
In the present case the petitioners except to the refusal of the trial court to allow their amendment, and to the judgment on the remittitur.
John M. Brennan, Savannah, Joseph Scott, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
Gazan, Walsh & Bernstein, Savannah, for defendant in error.
In Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. Hanley, 208 Ga. 34, 65 S.E.2d 26, on the former appearance of this case in this court, it was held that a part of the consideration of the alleged contract to make a will--the agreement by the mother to surrender possession of her infant child, in order to receive a benefit for herself and her other children--was void as being against public policy. It was also stated in the opinion that other allegations as to services rendered to the executor's testatrix were insufficient to set forth a cause of action for specific performance of the alleged parol contract to make a will.
The amendment rejected by the court was an amplification of the allegations of the petition in regard to the personal services performed by the petitioners for the deceased, alleging the approximate date the contract was made, enumerating certain services performed, and alleging a monetary value for such services. The question for determination now is whether or not the petitioners could recover in the action even though their petition by amended to show fully the details of their contract in regard to the personal services to be performed.
The Code, § 20-305, provides:
It is the law of this case that a part of the consideration for the contract to make a will was void as being against public policy. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. Hanley, supra. Does the provision of § 20-305, declaring that, if the consideration of a contract be illegal in part, the whole promise fails, include a consideration which is void as against public policy?
The general rule of law in regard to contracts contrary to public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ET Barwick Industries v. Walter E. Heller & Co.
...13-8-2 merely declares certain contracts unenforceable and does not confer any right to recover damages. See Hanley v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 208 Ga. 585, 68 S.E.2d 581 (1952); Jones v. Faulkner, 101 Ga.App. 547, 114 S.E.2d 542 (1960). While plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the above c......
-
Walton Motor Sales, Inc. v. Ross
...treat the special master's interpretation of Judge Lawrence's order as the holding of the district court.16 Hanley v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 1952, 208 Ga. 585, 68 S.E.2d 581, 582; Dorsett v. Garrard, 1890, 85 Ga. 734, 11 S.E. 768, 770; Jones v. Faulkner, 1960, 101 Ga.App. 547, 114 S.E.2......
-
Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp.
...fails." OCGA § 13-3-45. "`An illegal consideration consists of any act... which is contrary to law....'" Hanley v. Savannah Bank & Trust, 208 Ga. 585, 586, 68 S.E.2d 581 (1952). Knowingly and willfully making a false statement while under oath constitutes the offense of false swearing. OCGA......
-
Barger v. Garden Way, Inc.
...` It is a general rule that agreements against public policy are illegal and void.'" (Citations omitted.) Hanley v. Savannah Bank, etc., Co., 208 Ga. 585, 586, 68 S.E.2d 581. Moreover, "[i]f the consideration upon which a contract is based was given as a result of a mutual mistake of fact o......