Hulgan v. Gledhill, 17220
| Decision Date | 11 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17220,17220 |
| Citation | 61 S.E.2d 473,207 Ga. 349 |
| Parties | HULGAN v. GLEDHILL et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
E. F. Taylor, V. J. Adams, both of Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Jones, Jones & Sparks, A. O. B. Sparks, Jr., all of Macon, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Mere inadequacy of price may justify a court in refusing to decree a specific performance; so also any other fact showing the contract to be unfair, or unjust, or against good conscience. Code, § 37-805.
2. Miller v. Cotten, 5 Ga. 341; Matthews v. Blanos, 201 Ga. 549, 562, 40 S.E.2d 715, and cases cited.
3. 'A parol contract for land, like the reformation of a deed by parol proof, should be made out so clearly, strongly and satisfactorily, as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the agreement.' Printup v. Mitchell, 17 Ga. 558, 559; Beall v. Clark, 71 Ga. 818(3); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546, 87 S.E. 668; Gordon v. Spellman, 148 Ga. 394(2), 96 S.E. 1006; Lloyd v. Redford, 148 Ga. 575, 97 S.E. 523; Salmon v. McCrary, 197 Ga. 281, 29 S.E.2d 58.
4. In this case the petitioner alleged that the defendant contracted to build a house for him at a cost of 'approximately $2000.' The petition does not allege, and the evidence fails to show, the value of the land, or the house, and there is no evidence as to the type of house which the defendant was to build, nor any other fact from which an inference might be drawn by a jury as to the value of the property. The evidence was not sufficient to support a verdict and decree for specific performance, and the court did not err in granting a nonsuit. Coleman v. Woodland Hills Co., 196 Ga. 626, 27 S.E.2d 226; Barnett v. Henry, 200 Ga. 365, 37 S.E.2d 340.
5. The petitioner testified that the contract price was $2880, and, further, that a part of the consideration was certain work to be performed on lands of the defendant by members of the Civilian Conservation Corps, an agency of the Federal Government, under the direction of the petitioner. The common-law rule, that no public agent may make a profit out of public business entrusted in his care, is the rule in this State. Montgomery v. City of Atlanta, 162 Ga. 534, 546(2), 134 S.E. 152, and cases cited. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. Martin
...176 Ga. 51, 166 S.E. 641; Salmon v. McCrary, 197 Ga. 281, 29 S.E.2d 58; Haynes v. Ellis, 199 Ga. 702, 35 S.E.2d 151; Hulgan v. Gledhill, 207 Ga. 349, 61 S.E.2d 473. A petition which alleges a parol contract to adopt, and which seeks to have the child declared to be an heir of the deceased, ......
-
Harp v. Bacon
...the agreement.' Printup v. Mitchell, 17 Ga. 558(16) (63 Am.Dec. 258); Barnett v. Henry, 200 Ga. 365, 371, 37 S.E.2d 340; Hulgam v. Gledhill, 207 Ga. 349, 61 S.E.2d 473; Harper v. Hudson, 210 Ga. 751, 82 S.E.2d 854; Mead v. McGee, 215 Ga. 574, 111 S.E.2d 234. 3. 'Proving the alleged contract......
-
Logan v. Logan
...149 Ga. 367, 100 S.E. 110; Brogdon v. Hogan, 189 Ga. 244, 5 S.E.2d 657; Johns v. Nix, 196 Ga. 417(3), 26 S.E.2d 526; Hulgan v. Gledhill, 207 Ga. 349, 61 S.E.2d 473 and Jackson v. Copeland, 217 Ga. 420, 122 S.E.2d 573. Since the evidence in the instant case fails to show the value of the Wal......
-
Hudson v. Hampton, 22543
...doubt as to the agreement.' Printup v. Mitchell, 17 Ga. 558(16); Barnett v. Henry, 200 Ga. 365, 371, 37 S.E.2d 340; Hulgan v. Gledhill, 207 Ga. 349, 61 S.E.2d 473; Harper v. Hudson, 210 Ga. 751, 82 S.E.2d 854; Mead v. McGee, 215 Ga. 574, 111 S.E.2d 3. 'Proving the alleged contract by a prep......