Mcgriff v. Mcgriff
| Decision Date | 23 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3267.) |
| Citation | 115 S.E. 21,154 Ga. 560 |
| Parties | McGRIFF. v. McGRIFF. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Grady County; R. C. Bell, Judge.
Action by Frank McGriff against Dan Mc-Griff. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
This is an action by Frank McGriff against Dan McGriff for specific performance of a parol contract of sale of land. Plaintiff alleged that on November 15, 1913, Dan McGriff sold to him a tract of 20 acres, more or less, of land, which is fully described in the petition, for the sum of $150, which he paid cash on said date; that the seller was to make to him a deed to said tract of land immediately after the redemption of said land from the lien held by a loan company thereon; that he took immediate possession of said land under his contract of purchase, and had erected thereon valuable and per manent improvements, of the value of $1,200, on the faith of his purchase; that the incumbrance on said land was removed on May 15, 1916; and that he made a demand on Dan McGriff, on or about May 30, 1916, for a deed, which the latter refused to make.
Dan McGriff, in his answer, denied that he sold said land to the plaintiff; denied further that plaintiff paid him the sum of $150 or any other amount on the purchase money thereof; and alleged that plaintiff was net in possession of said land under any contract of purchase, but as his tenant; that plaintiff put a small four room house on said land about ten years ago, at an expense of $150; that plaintiff used said land for a period of five or six years without paying anything therefor; that said improvements so made by plaintiff were not done under any contract of purchase; and that plaintiff was not entitled to any reimbursement therefor. He further alleged that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $75 for rent of said land for the year 1920, for which he prayed judgment.
The petition of the plaintiff was verified July 15, 1920; but the date of filing does not appear. The plaintiff fully supported the allegations of his petition by the testimony of himself, Nelson McGriff, and George Mc Griff. On his cross-examination, the court required Nelson McGriff, over objection of counsel for plaintiff, to testify that he bought 20 acres of land from the defendant at the same time plaintiff bought, and paid defendant $150 for it; that he borrowed $25 from L. Hall just before this time; and that he had the full $150 in his pocket that day. The plaintiff objected to each part and all of this evidence, on the ground that it related to a transaction between George McGriff and Dan McGriff, and was irrelevant. The court overruled the objection and admitted the testimony, and this ruling was assigned as error. The court required George McGriff, on cross-examination, to testify that he made a trade with Dan McGriff, at the same time, for 20 acres of land at the same price; that defendant contracted to make him a deed to his land as soon as he got it out of the loan company; that Nelson McGriff bought 20 acres of land from defendant at the same time, and paid $150 for it; and that he worked out most of his money and borrowed some of it. Plaintiff objected to this testimony, on the ground that it related to transactions between third parties and was irrelevant. The court overruled this objection and admitted the testimony, and its admission was assigned as error. The court required George McGriff to testify, on cross-examination, over objection of plaintiff, that he made and executed a certain mortgage to Crawford Miller Company. Plaintiff objected to this evidence, on theground that it was a transaction between third parties, and was immaterial. The court overruled this objection, and error was assigned.
The defendant testified that he had never sold any land in his life; that the money about which plaintiff and his witnesses had been talking was rent money; that they were living on his land, and the money they gave him was to pay rent; that he paid all the taxes on the land at all times; that he now had the land in a long loan with Mr. Hurst; that he did not make a contract which the plaintiff testified he made; that plaintiff did not pay him $150 in 1913; that plaintiff lived where he now lives; that he was not living on his father-in-law's land when he claims to have bought this land; that he had never got any rent out of plaintiff; that he had never received as much as $150 at one time from any of them; that the improvements made by the plaintiff on this land were worth about $150 or $200; that plaintiff stayed on the land for a long time, and was never able to pay much, so he told him he would have to pay some rent; that in 1918 and 1919 he paid Mr. Weaver $50 for the defendant, which was for rent. He told plaintiff, about November, 1913, that he would make him a bond for title to 15 acres of land, if the former would pay him, he thinks, about $500. He brought a distress warrant for rent in 1920 against all the boys, Frank, George, and Nelson. He did not collect any rent. He agreed in the office of counsel for plaintiff to make them bond for title and then give them a deed, if they ever got him paid. The plaintiff objected to the testimony of the defendant that he had procured a long loan on the land in dispute from the Hurst-Long Loan Company in 1919, on the ground that the same was irrelevant, and on the ground that he could not be bound by such transaction.
The defendant introduced the following documentary evidence: (1) A notice to produce a mortgage executed by plaintiff to L. Hall, dated November 19, 1913, which notice was served on plaintiff's attorney on August 20, 1921. (2) A mortgage given by plaintiff to L. Hall, dated November 10, 1913, for $28.-12, due October 15, 1914. (3) A mortgage given by plaintiff to Crawford Miller Company for $12.90, for purchase money of a wagon, dated October 17, 1913, due December 1, 1913, and providing that if $10 should be paid at maturity the balance might be extended to September 15, 1914, without additional interest. (4) A mortgage given by George Mc-Griff to Crawford Miller Company for purchase money of a mare, dated October 11, 1913, due October 13, 1913, and providing that if $25 should be paid at maturity the balance might be extended to September 15, 3914, without additional interest. (5) The original petition filed in the clerk's office on July 30, 1920, by George McGriff against Dan Mc Griff, for specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of 20 acres of land for $150. (6) The original petition filed in the clerk's office on July 30, 1920, by Nelson McGriff against Dan McGriff, for specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of 20 acres of land for the sum of $150. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the admission of the mortgage from George McGriff to Crawford Miller Company, and to the mortgage from plaintiff to L. Hall, on the ground that the same were irrelevant and shed no light upon any of the issues involved in this case. Plaintiff further objected to the admission of the mortgage from George McGriff to Crawford Miller Company, on the ground that it threw no light upon the instant case, and was prej-udical to his interest, in that it created upon the minds of the jury the impression that movant as well as George McGriff was badly in debt or was worse in debt than the facts would show. The court overruled the objections, and admitted the instruments in evidence. Error was assigned on these rulings. The jury found against the plaintiff. He moved for a new trial upon general grounds, and on grounds complaining of the admission of the evidence hereinbefore referred to. The court overruled the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.
W. H. Duckworth, of Cairo, for plaintiff in error.
HINES, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1, 8, 9,] 1. Plaintiff urges that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. While the plaintiff sustained his case by the greater number of witnesses, this does not necessarily mean that the preponderance of the testimony was in his favor. Civil Code 1910, § 5732. Sometimes, in the minds of jurors, the testimony of one witness is of more weight and credit than of...
To continue reading
Request your trial