Rountree v. Rentfroe

• Decision Date: 21 January 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 23,139 Ga. 290
• Parties: ROUNTREE v. RENTFROE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

77 S.E. 23

139 Ga. 290

ROUNTREE v. RENTFROE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 21, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the question was whether a deed made by a married woman was made in consideration of securing her own debt or the debt of her husband, there was no error in allowing the husband to testify that he was the one who borrowed the money.

Where without conflict in any material particular, the evidence showed that the wife made a deed to her own property for the purpose of securing the debt of her husband, in a proceeding to cancel such a deed as a cloud upon her title, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Error from Superior Court, Brooks County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.

Action by M. A. Rentfroe against S. S. Rountree. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Bennet Long & Harrell, of Quitman, for plaintiff in error.

J. G. & J. F. McCall, of Quitman, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. In giving the history of the transaction, and showing who negotiated with Rountree in respect of the loan, and for whose benefit it was made, there was no error in allowing Rentfroe, the husband, to testify that he was the one who borrowed the money from Rountree. The objection made to this evidence was that it was irrelevant, and that the question was to whom Rountree extended the credit, and who signed the notes. But the evidence was not subject to this objection.

2. In Scofield v. Jones, 85 Ga. 816, 11 S.E. 1032, it was held that husband and wife may become joint lessees of a house in which to carry on a hotel business, contract jointly to pay the rent, and execute joint promissory notes therefor and that, where such is not merely the outward color, but the real truth of the transaction, the debt for rent is the debt of the wife as well as the husband. In the opinion Chief Justice Bleckley said: "The true test of the real debtor or debtors is, To whom did the consideration pass? King v. Thompson, 59 Ga. 380. If it passed to one of them severally, that one alone is the debtor, but, if to both jointly, then consistency requires that they should be held as joint debtors, they having united in executing a joint agreement and assuming a joint obligation to pay." It has also been held that a married woman may voluntarily, upon her own responsibility and in good faith, borrow money for the purpose of paying a debt of her husband, and give her notes therefor, and that such a contract will be binding upon her, although the lender may know, at the time the loan is made, that she is borrowing for that purpose, if he is not the husband's creditor who is to be thus paid, and is no party to any arrangement or scheme between the husband and wife for which the borrowing of the money by her for such purpose is the outcome. Rood v. Wright, 124 Ga. 849, 53 S.E. 390.

In the present case the evidence showed, without controversy, that the husband owed a debt, and applied to his creditor for the loan of an additional sum in order that he might go into a commercial venture for himself; that...