Mclean v. Mann
| Decision Date | 15 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 666.) |
| Parties | McLEAN. v. MANN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Telfair County; E. D. Graham, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Callie McLean against F. R. Mann and another. Verdict and judgment for defendants, motion for new trial overruled, and plaintiff excepts and brings error. Affirmed.
Mrs. Callie McLean filed her petition in equity, in Telfair superior court, against F. R, Mann and Douglas McArthur. She alleged that defendants were in possession of a deed to lot of land No. 85 in the Seventh district of said county; said deed purporting to have been executed by the petitioner, who was formerly Mrs. C. J. McDuffie. She alleged that she was in possession of the land and that the deed was a forgery. She claimed title to the land under a deed executed by Mrs. Victoria McArthur as the administratrix of Walter T. McArthur, deceased. She prayed for the cancellation of the deed. The defendants denied that the deed was a forgery, and alleged that the same was executed and delivered by the petitioner in furtherance of a compromise agreement for the settlement of a dispute with reference to the ownership of two lots of land, title to which was claimed both by the former husband of the plaintiff and by the administratrix of Walter T. McArthur, deceased. By the terms of this agreement title to both of said lots was to be made to plaintiff's husband, and he in turn was to make title to lot 85 to Douglas McArthur. The agreement was carried out, but at the direction of plaintiff's former husband the title to both of the lots was made to the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff executed and delivered a deed to Douglas McArthur, conveying to him lot 85. Douglas McArthur conveyed the lot to the defendant Mann. Itwas contended by the defendants that plaintiff was estopped to assert title to the land, and that it was inequitable for the plaintiff to have and to hold the other lot to which she, in the right of her former husband, acquired quiet title, and repudiate her deed to the defendant McArthur to the lot in question. The settlement of the dispute between the plaintiffs husband and the estate of Walter T. McArthur was alleged to be the sole consideration of the deed by the administratrix of Walter T. McArthur's estate to the plaintiff. The evidence for the defendants tended to support their contentions. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants. A motion filed by the plaintiff for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v. Hogans, 14772.
-
Akins v. Parker
...the parties not raised by the pleadings, though supported by some evidence in the record, is not cause for a new trial." McLean v. Mann, 148 Ga. 114(2), 95 S.E. 985; City of Brunswick v. Glogauer, 158 Ga. 792(4), 124 S.E. 787; York v. Stonecypher, 181 Ga. 435, 437(1), 182 S. E. 605. See als......
-
Akins v. Parker
... ... pleadings, though supported by some evidence in the record, ... is not cause for a new trial.' McLean v. Mann, ... 148 Ga. 114(2), 95 S.E. 985; City of Brunswick v ... Glogauer, 158 Ga. 792(4), 124 S.E. 787; York v ... Stonecypher, 181 Ga. 435, ... ...
-
Land v. State, (No. 18451.)
...(2a), 132 S. E. 245; Mitchell v. State, 152 Ga. 375 (3), 109 S. E. 357; Jordan v. State, 153 Ga. 167 (2), 111 S. E. 417. In McLean v. Mann, 148 Ga. 114, 95 S. E. 985, Mr. Justice George said; "If the judge approved the ground of the amendment, without more, this is a sufficient approval; bu......