Munroe v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 12 May 1916
• Parties: MUNROE ET AL. v. BALDWIN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

88 S.E. 947

145 Ga. 215

MUNROE ET AL. v. BALDWIN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 12, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

A deed properly attested and recorded, is admissible in evidence without further proof of execution. And although a deed may not be properly attested or probated to authorize its record nevertheless this will not prevent it from conveying title as against the grantor and his heirs. Downs v. Yonge, 17 Ga. 295; Johnson v. Jones, 87 Ga. 85, 89, 13 S.E 261; Howard v. Russell, 104 Ga. 230, 232, 30 S.E 802.

If secondary evidence, such as a copy of a deed from the record, where the original was not properly attested or probated to authorize its admission to record, is admitted in evidence without objection, it is to be considered as evidence, and a charge or verdict may be based upon it; and such a verdict will not be set aside as being unsupported by evidence. Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600; Chance v. Summerford, 25 Ga. 662; Sumner v. Bryan, 54 Ga. 613; Patton v. Bank of La Fayette, 124 Ga. 965(7), 973, 53 S.E. 664, 5 L.R.A. (N. S.) 592, 4 Ann.Cas. 639.

Even if a deed from a husband to his wife, conveying land for a money consideration, falls within the provisions of Civ. Code 1910, § 3009, which declares that no contract of sale by a wife of her separate estate with her husband shall be valid unless it is allowed by order of the superior court of the county of her domicile, so that such a deed without an order of court is invalid, the right to assail its validity on this ground is personal to her and her privies in blood or estate, and cannot be asserted by persons who, as heirs of the husband, bring an action to recover the land from one holding by a chain of title under the wife. Scaife v. Scaife, 134 Ga. 1, 67 S.E. 408. See, also, in this connection, Webb v. Harris, 124 Ga. 733, 53 S.E. 247.

In such a suit by the heirs of the husband, to recover the land from one holding under the wife, the deed from the husband to the wife was admissible against the plaintiff, over the objection that it was not valid because not authorized by an order of court. No objection was made to the introduction in evidence of the certified copy of the deed on the ground that such deed was not properly attested to authorize it to be recorded.

A suit having been brought by certain persons as heirs of a deceased husband, seeking to recover land from one who claimed to hold by conveyances under the wife of the plaintiff's ancestor, and the uncontradicted evidence showing that the husband conveyed the land to his wife for a pecuniary consideration, there was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Error from Superior Court, Haralson County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.

Action by B. A. Munroe and others against J. E. Baldwin. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Hutchens & Hutchens, of Tallapoosa, for plaintiffs in error.

Griffith & Matthews, of Buchanan, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J.

B. A Munroe and others brought suit against J. E. Baldwin, seeking to recover a lot of land and mesne profits. They alleged that they were all of the heirs of B. O. Munroe, deceased, and that there was no administration on his estate. It was shown that B. O. Munroe executed a deed to his wife, and that he and she continued to live together on the land. The defendant introduced in evidence a certified copy of a deed from B. O Munroe to his wife, which expressed a consideration of $3,000. From this it appeared that the deed was attested by two witnesses, neither of whom was an official...