Morgan v. Todd
| Decision Date | 10 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20163,20163 |
| Citation | 106 S.E.2d 37,214 Ga. 497 |
| Parties | Merla MORGAN v. J. L. TOOD et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The petition, which seeks possession of described lands and the cancellation of a sheriff's deed thereto, alleging that in 1932 the petitioner obtained a security deed thereto and the debts secured thereby are past due and unpaid, and that the sheriff sold the property under an execution issued in 1956 against the grantor, alleges a cause of action and it was error to dismiss the same on demurrer.
This is an action to recover land and to declare a sheriff's deed to the property void and of no force and effect. The petitioner alleges that she is the holder of a deed to secure debt to the property, which was made to secure a specific indebtedness 'or any other present or future indebtedness or liability' between the grantor and the grantee; that an additional indebtedness was made which is past due and unpaid; that the grantor of the deed, one of the defendants, is still in possession; that, subsequently to the debt and conveyance to her, the grantor had an execution levied against him, and the property was sold by the sheriff to the other defendant; and that the sheriff's deed is a cloud on her title. She further alleges that the holder of the sheriff's deed claims that the absolute title conveyed in the deed to secure debt has reverted to the grantor under Code, § 67-1308, which is unconstitutional as violative of stated provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions.
The petition as amended was dismissed after a hearing on demurrer, and the exception is to that judgment.
Maddox & Maddox, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Wright, Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Clinton J. Morgan, Rome, for defendants in error.
The deed to secure debt upon which the plaintiff relies for title completely divested the grantor therein, the defendant Milam, of all title to the land therein described and involved in this suit. Accordingly, when execution issued against the grantor Milam on July 26, 1956, and when the sheriff levied that execution on said land, sold it and attempted in 1957, to convey it by sheriff's deed to defendant Todd, the defendant in fi. fa. had no title and no leviable interest. Hence, the sheriff's deed conveyed no title. Shumate v. McLendon, 120 Ga. 396(4), 48 S.E. 10; Bennett Lumber Co. v. Martin, 132 Ga. 491, 494, 64 S.E. 484; First National Bank of Cartersvill v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co., 163 Ga. 718, 721, 137 S.E. 53, 51 A.L.R. 1524.
But the defendants assert that title reverted to the grantor Milam in virtue of Georgia Laws 1941, pp. 487, 489 (Code, Ann., §§ 67-1308, 1314). Title to land conveyed by security deed is under this law made to revert to the grantor at the expiration of twenty years from the maturity of such debt or debts, or the maturity of the last installment thereof, 'as stated or fixed in the record of such conveyance (or in the conveyance if not recorded), or, if the maturity is not stated or fixed, at the expiration of 20 years from the date of the conveyance as stated in the record [italics ours] (or in the conveyance if not recorded), or, if the maturity is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barksdale v. Peoples Financial Corp. of Alpharetta
...g., Hill v. Perkins, 218 Ga. 354, 127 S.E.2d 909 (1962); Milikin v. Murphy, 214 Ga. 130, 103 S.E.2d 549 (1958); Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 107 S.E.2d 37 (1958); Dudley v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 188 Ga. 91, 2 S.E.2d 907 (1939); Norwood Realty Company v. First Federal Savings & Loan ......
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...statute is identified only as a Section of Ga.Code Annotated, published by The Harrison Company. This is not sufficient. Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 499, 106 S.E.2d 37; Bowen v. State, 215 Ga. 471, 472, 111 S.E.2d 44; Holmes v. State, 224 Ga. 553, 557, 163 S.E.2d 803; Widemon v. Burson, 22......
-
Todd v. Morgan
...James Maddox, Rome, for defendant in error. Syllabus Opinion by the Court MOBLEY, Justice. When this case was here before (Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 106 S.E.2d 37), it was held that the petition alleged a cause of action and that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition on demurr......
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...attack was made upon 'section 36-1307 Ga.Code Ann.' This court held that this designation was not sufficient. See also, Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 499, 106 S.E.2d 37; Holmes v. State, 224 Ga. 553, 558, 163 S.E.2d 803; Cox v. Burson, 226 Ga. 13(2), 172 S.E.2d These unreversed unanimous dec......