Purvis v. Raste

Decision Date10 August 1915
Citation85 S.E. 1012,144 Ga. 16
PartiesPURVIS v. RASTE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

There was no error in overruling the motion to continue or to postpone the case for the purpose of obtaining process in order to compel a female witness to appear and testify in person because, as it was contended, she had not answered one of certain interrogatories propounded to her.

Under the issues involved in this case, there was no error in refusing to allow a witness, who had stated that he was unable to tell whether a person to whom the plaintiff had executed a deed was insolvent at the time when such conveyance was executed, to answer the question, "Well shortly after that."

The provision of the Civil Code 1910, § 5858, par. 1, to the effect that the opposite party in a suit instituted or defended by an indorsee, assignee, or transferee of a deceased person shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor against the deceased person as to transactions or communications with such person, refers only to the immediate indorsee, assignee, or transferee of the deceased person. Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 527, 69 S.E. 817.

(a) Where a plaintiff alleged that he had made a deed conveying land to another, who had conveyed it to a third person, who had in turn conveyed it to still another person, and the plaintiff attacked these deeds and sought to recover the land from the last grantee and to have the deed made to her canceled, but did not make the first grantee, or any legal representative of him, a party, and did not make the second grantee a party, although he prayed the cancellation of the first deed, this did not render the plaintiff an incompetent witness to testify as to transactions between him and the first grantee.

(b) The prayer to have the first deed canceled, without making the grantee therein, or any legal representative of him, a party did not change the ruling above made. There was no demurrer to the petition for want of proper parties.

Under the issues and facts in this case, it was error to permit the defendant to testify as follows: "When Mr. Purvis brought the deed home, he told me he had bought Robert's place; and he says, 'If you outlive me, I want you to have this for a home.' "

If a purchaser of real estate with notice of an existing equity sells to one who purchases bona fide, for value, and without notice, the latter will be protected; or if a purchaser bona fide, for value, and without notice of such equity, sells to one with notice, the latter will be protected, as otherwise a bona fide purchaser might be deprived of selling his property for full value. Civil Code 1910, § 4535. The charge of the court on this subject was inaccurate, especially in placing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lankford v. Holton, s. 12458, 12463.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • October 15, 1938
    ...... to transactions or communications with such person, refers only to the immediate indorsee, assignee, or transferee of the deceased person." Purvis v. Rastc. 144 Ga. 16(3), 85 S.E. 1012; Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 527(5), 69 S.E. 817. It has therefore been held that in a suit to recover ......
  • Lankford v. Holton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • October 15, 1938
    ...... refers only to the immediate indorsee, assignee, or. transferee of the deceased person.' Purvis v. Raste, 144 Ga. 16(3), 85 S.E. 1012; Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 527(5), 69 S.E. 817. It has therefore. been held that in a suit to ......
  • Carlisle v. Ottley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • August 11, 1915
  • Carlisle v. Ottley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • August 11, 1915
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT