Lake v. Hardee
Decision Date | 31 July 1876 |
Citation | 57 Ga. 459 |
Parties | William Lake, trustee, plaintiff in error. v. John H. Hardee et al., defendants in error. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.]
Equity. Verdicts. Decrees. Practice in the Superior Court. Statute of limitations. Executors and administrators. Fraud. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, 1875.
This cause being submitted to the jury, they found as follows:
Whereupon the chancellor rendered the following decree:
"June 25th, 1875.
For the remaining facts, see the opinion.
Hartridge & Chisholm; R. E. Lester, for plaintiff in error.
R. R. Richards, for defendants.
Thomas Hardee died in South Carolina possessed of an estate of lands and negro slaves, about the year 1857. Lake, who married one of his daughters, qualified as executor. The complainants were children of W. W. Hardee, son of the testator, and grand-children of the testator. W. W. Hardee died before his father. The estate was divided among the legatees, but the part alloted to W. W. Hardee was put in the executor's hands to see whether the legacy lapsed on account of W. W. Hardee's death before his father's, and to be held to answer to a bond given by W. W. Hardee, and indorsed, by testator, if it was liable therefor. There was some dispute whether this division was temporary or permanent. Lake sold some lands which could not be equally divided, and before the war moved the share of complainants, in money and negroes, to Savannah, Georgia, where he lived. Before the war, and about its beginning, he sold some of the slaves belonging *to this share of complainants' father, and about 1863 invested money in other slaves. It was in dispute whether he bought the latter for himself or for the share he thus held for complainants, in certain contingencies, but he obtained no order of any court either to sell or to buy. In 1858 or 1859 he filed a bill in South Carolina to fix the rights of the parties and to settle the estate, but it was suffered to drag along until Beaufort fell into the federal hands during the war, and the court-house...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation
...Co., 168 Mo.App. 199, 153 S.W. 495; Weston v. Gilmore, 63 Me. 493; Wertz v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 11 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 872; Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459. The jury must correct its own verdict when necessary, under proper instructions from the court. Cookville Coal & Lumber Co. v. Evans......
-
In re Thompson's Estate
... ... 85; Atchison's Heirs v ... Lindsay, 6 B. Mon. 86; Beeler v. Dunn, 3 Head, ... 87; Laughlin v. McManus, 180 Pa. St. 177; Lake ... v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459; Tunstall v. Pollard's ... Admr., 11 Leigh, 1; Fugate v. Moore, 86 Va ... 1045; McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige, 239; ... ...
-
Fried v. Fried, s. 17787
...and a new trial ordered, because the judge has found facts which the jury did not, and thus usurped their peculiar province.' Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459, 466(2). See also Law v. Coleman, 173 Ga. 68, 159 S.E. (a) The decree of the court not only having failed to follow, but having made subst......
-
Harrell v. Bank of the South, N.A.
...judge to find facts which the jury did not, and thus usurp their peculiar province. Law v. Coleman, 173 Ga. 68, 159 S.E. 679; Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459, 466. The jury in this case returned a verdict against a non-entity. To apply the rule of alter ego to such a finding as contended by Mrs.......