Hunnicutt v. Archer, (No. 5413.)

• Decision Date: 26 February 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 5413.)
• Citation: 163 Ga. 868,137 S.E. 253
• Parties: HUNNICUTT. v. ARCHER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

163 Ga. 868

137 S.E. 253

HUNNICUTT.

v.ARCHER.

(No. 5413.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 26, 1927.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Beulah Archer Hunnicutt against Mrs. Bessie Myra Archer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

In December, 1925, Mrs. Beulah Archer Hunnicutt brought a petition against Mrs. Bessie Myra Archer, and alleged in substance the following: On October 7, 1913, petitioner was the owner of an equity in certain described real estate. About six months before this date her husband died, leaving her in an enfeebled condition and upon her own resources. Her brother, Polk Archer, in whom she had every confidence, approached her with the proposition that she deed to him her equity in the real estate, and that as a consideration therefor he would furnish to her a support during her life, or until she married again. Polk Archer had drawn and presented to her, for her signature, a deed to the real estate, which deed recited a consideration of $700 and other consideration. She had the utmost faith and confidence in the integrity and honesty of Polk Archer, and relied absolutely and unqualifiedly upon all his statements. It was distinctly agreed and understood between her and Polk Archer that the consideration for the deed was that she was to be supported by him during her life or widowhood. While the deed recites a cash consideration of $700, in truth and in fact not one cent was paid to her by Archer. He represented to her that the recitals in the deed were sufficient to protect her in any eventuality, and that it wasnot necessary to incorporate therein the full agreement; her confidence in him Was misplaced and was by him betrayed, in that the representation by him that the recital in the deed was sufficient to protect her, and that it was unnecessary to incorporate in the deed the full agreement, was false and fraudulent, and was intended at the time to deceive her, and it did so deceive her; and if her confidence had not thus been misplaced, she would not have signed the deed as written.

In November, 1925, Polk Archer died, and Bessie Myra Archer, his widow, is now claiming the property as the heir of her husband, to the exclusion of petitioner's rights. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law, she has never remarried; and unless a court of equity takes jurisdiction of her cause, she will suffer irreparable injury. The prayers are that the deed be reformed to speak the true contract between petitioner and Polk Archer; that on the final hearing such decree be entered as will adequately protect and enforce petitioner's rights in the premises; that the defendant be enjoined from in any manner interfering with petitioner's possession of the premises, from selling, incumbering, or changing the status of the property; for general relief. By an amendment it was alleged that the defendant is also seeking to claim the property described under and by virtue of a deed to secure a debt in the sum of $2,000, and of a warranty deed stating a consideration of $2,000, both of which purport to have been executed by Polk Archer to the defendant, and bear dates subsequent to the date of petitioner's deed to Archer; that the deeds are not bona fide, but were executed for the purpose of furthering...