Jackson v. Bates

• Decision Date: 11 April 1934
• Docket Number: 9840.
• Citation: 174 S.E. 352,178 Ga. 723
• Parties: JACKSON v. BATES.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

174 S.E. 352

178 Ga. 723

JACKSON v. BATES.

No. 9840.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 11, 1934

Syllabus by the Court.

The issue for determination in this case was whether the land levied on under execution against the husband, and claimed by the wife, was in fact the property of the wife or was the property of the husband; and it was improper to instruct the jury that all property given to or acquired by the wife during coverture shall vest in and belong to the wife, and shall not be liable for the payment of any debt or obligation of the husband. Under the facts of the case, this charge was inapplicable and was apparently prejudicial to the plaintiff in fi. fa. For this error alone, the verdict in favor of the claimant should have been set aside and a new trial granted on motion.

Error from Superior Court, Madison County; Berry T. Moseley, Judge.

Execution proceeding by Ruth Jackson against William B. Bates, wherein Mrs. William B. Bates was claimant. Judgment for claimant plaintiff in execution's motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff in execution brings error.

Reversed.

Clarence E. Adams, of Danielsville, and John B. Gamble, of Athens, for plaintiff in error.

R Howard Gordon, of Danielsville, and Erwin, Erwin & Nix, of Athens, for defendant in error.

BELL Justice.

An execution in favor of Miss Ruth Jackson and against William B. Bates was levied on a tract of land to which Mrs. Bates the wife of the defendant in execution, filed a claim. On the trial, the jury found a verdict in favor of the claimant. The plaintiff in fi. fa. made a motion for a new trial, which the court overruled, and she excepted.

The motion contained the general grounds, and a number of special grounds were added by amendment, each relating to the charge of the court to the jury.

The execution was issued by the clerk of the superior court of Madison county on September 10, 1931, and was based upon a judgment dated September 7. The land in question was situated in the same county, and the claim of Mrs. Bates was founded upon a deed executed to her by her father, W. P. Williams, on November 13, 1931. It appeared from the evidence that this deed was executed in consideration of the sum of $1,000, and that this amount was paid by the defendant in fi. fa. The claimant contended that the consideration was furnished by herself, and was not the money of her husband. The plaintiff contended, among other things, that the consideration was paid by the husband, the defendant in fi. fa., out of funds belonging to himself, and that he caused the deed to be made to his wife in an effort to defraud the plaintiff in fi. fa. Under the evidence a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. would have been authorized.

In one ground of the motion for a new trial the movant assigned error on the following charge to the jury: "All property of the wife at the time of her marriage, whether real personal, or choses in actions, shall be and remain the separate property of the wife, and all property given to, inherited or acquired by the wife during coverture shall vest in and belong to the wife, and shall not be liable to the payment of any debt, default, or contract of the husband. The wife is a feme sole as to her separate estate, unless controlled by the settlement. Every restriction upon her power in it must be complied with; but while the wife may contract, she cannot bind her separate estate by any contract of suretyship, nor by any assumption of the debts of her husband, and by any sale of her separate estate, made to a creditor of her husband in...