Hilton v. Hilton
| Decision Date | 04 February 1947 |
| Docket Number | 15726 |
| Citation | 41 S.E.2d 880,202 Ga. 53 |
| Parties | HILTON v. HILTON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1947.
W. T. Revell, of Louisville, for plaintiff in error.
J Roy McCracken, of Louisville, and Harris, Chance & McCracken, of Augusta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Lula Hilton brought a suit in equity against Mrs. W. G. S. Rowe and Alonzo Hilton, alleging that she, together with the defendants, had entered into a parol contract by which it was agreed that the plaintiff should purchase from Mrs. Rowe the east half, and Alonzo Hilton the west half of a described city lot. It was further alleged that through mistake and inadvertence on the part of Mrs. Rowe, and with knowledge and fraudulent intent on the part of Alonzo Hilton, Mrs. Rowe had deeded by specific description more than one half of the premises to Alonzo Hilton, and subsequently through mutual misapprehension as to the amount of land remaining in the lot, conveyed the balance to the plaintiff. The petition prayed that both the deeds above referred to be reformed so as to conform to the intention of the parties under the parol agreement, and for specific performance of the parol agreement. Alonzo Hilton attacked the petition on general demurrer on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff, Lula Hilton, and the defendant Alonzo Hilton, the other grantee, and urged that the plaintiff could not therefore maintain her action to reform the deed made to him. Error is assigned on the order of the lower court sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition as to the defendant Alonzo Hilton. Held:
1. Primarily, the right to reform a contract belongs to the original parties thereto. The recognized extension under the Code, § 37-213, in favor of those in privity with the original contractors does not mean that the terms of a contract can be altered and reformed by one who does not claim as a successor under the contract sought to be reformed but under another contract, setting up different and inconsistent rights. Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. 624, 628, 1 S.E.2d 423; Garlington v. Blount, 146 Ga. 527, 91 S.E. 553.
2. Under the facts as above set forth, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, Lula Hilton, is an original party to the deed of conveyance by the defendant Mrs. Rowe to the defendant Alonzo Hilton. The mere fact that Lula Hilton and the other grantee Alonzo Hilton had entered into an agreement with the common grantor whereby each was to purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Intern. Indem. Co. v. City of Metter, Ga., 90-8302
...made to seek an equitable reformation of the contract on the ground of mutual mistake." (citation omitted)).17 See Hilton v. Hilton, 202 Ga. 53, 41 S.E.2d 880, 881 (1947) ("Primarily, the right to reform a contract belongs to the original parties thereto. The recognized extension under the ......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Adams (In re Adams)
...to the same right in the same property that Mr. Adams has. On this point the Memorandum of Law relies entirely on Hilton v. Hilton , 202 Ga. 53, 41 S.E.2d 880 (1947). In Hilton , three people (which the Court will refer to as Grantor, Grantee One, and Grantee Two) agreed that Grantor would ......
-
General Development Corp. v. Kirk
...be incorrect and be due to the mutual mistake of the parties.' Garlington v. Blount, 1917, 146 Ga. 527, 91 S.E. 553; Hilton v. Hilton, 1947, 202 Ga. 53, 41 S.E.2d 880. In Rawson v. Brosnan, 1939, 187 Ga. 624, 1 S.E.2d 423, the same court deals with the problem as if it is not one of 'standi......
-
Hadlock v. Poutre
...the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title. Hilton v. Hilton, 202 Ga. 53, 41 S.E.2d 880 (1947). See also Richards v. Midkiff, 48 Haw. 32, 396 P.2d 49 (1964); Romanoff v. Superior Career Institute, Inc., 69 App.Div.2d ......
-
Real Property - Linda S. Finley
...Stokes, 212 Ga. 707, 709, 95 S.E.2d 283, 285 (1956)). 143. See id. at 746 n.8, 647 S.E.2d at 291 n.8. 144. Id. (quoting Hilton v. Hilton, 202 Ga. 53, 54, 41 S.E.2d 880, 881 (1947)). 145. Id. at 746, 647 S.E.2d at 291. 146. Id. at 746-47, 647 S.E.2d at 291-92; 280 Ga. 873, 635 S.E.2d 105 (20......