Sikes v. Seckinger
| Decision Date | 15 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 5526. |
| Citation | 137 S.E. 833,164 Ga. 96 |
| Parties | SIKES v. SECKINGER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A donee of land under a parol gift, based upon a meritorious consideration, who, with the consent of the donor, enters into possession and makes valuable improvements upon the faith of the gift, acquires a perfect equity as against the donor, his heirs, and those claiming under him with notice.
(a) Such perfect equity in the donee, with a subsequent deed from the donor to the donee will support an action of ejectment.
(b) Where the donee was the daughter-in-law of the donor, and where, after the gift had become complete by her entry into possession and the making of valuable improvements upon the land upon the faith of the gift, the mother-in-law, before making a deed to the daughter-in-law, conveyed the land to her son, who was the husband of the donee, the daughter-in-law could have maintained an equitable petition for specific performance against the mother-in-law, and to have the deed made by the mother-in-law to the son canceled the son taking his deed with knowledge of the prior gift of his mother to his wife.
(c) Parties can voluntarily do what equity will compel them to do; and equity will not entertain a bill for specific performance when the parties have already performed what they ought to have done.
(d) Upon proof of the gift of this land by the donor to the donee, possession thereof by the donee with the consent of the donor, and the making thereon of valuable improvements upon the faith of the gift, was proper to establish in the plaintiff a perfect equity and to account for the subsequent execution of a deed by the donor to the donee to effectuate such gift.
Upon proof of the gift of this land by the mother-in-law to the daughter-in-law, possession thereof by the donee with the consent of the donor, the erection thereon of valuable improvements by the donee, and the subsequent execution of a deed by the donor to the donee, which was made with the consent and at the request of the donee's husband, the donee acquired a legal title to the land.
(a) Where the husband of the donee, who was the son of the donor after receiving his deed from the donor, requested the latter to execute a deed to his wife, which was attested by two witnesses, one of whom was a notary public, and where the husband signed the attestation clause of the deed under the signatures of the attesting witnesses, the son and those claiming under him would be estopped from asserting that the wife acquired no title under the deed to her from her mother-in-law, although such deed might not operate to convey to the donee whatever title the son had in the land.
If one having title to land sells and conveys the same by deed to another, he cannot thereafter by his deed convey to a subsequent purchaser any title thereto.
(a) After the making of a parol gift of land to a donee who went into possession with the consent of the donor, and on the faith of the gift made valuable improvements on the land, the gift thereby became complete, the donee thereby acquired a perfect equity in the land, and the donor could not thereafter revoke the gift and convey the land to another for the reason that she had no title to or interest in the land which she could then convey.
Where the land, after the making of the deed from the donor to the donee, was levied upon under execution against the husband of the donee, and where the donee filed a claim to the land so levied on, the dismissal of her claim by the donee would not estop her from asserting title to the land where it was afterwards sold at sheriff's sale under the executions so levied.
If after the sheriff's sale, the wife executed to the purchaser her quitclaim deed to the land in order to enable him to sell the land for the purpose of paying the debts of her husband, such quitclaim deed was void, and would not estop the wife from asserting her title to the land against such purchaser and those claiming under him with notice of the wife's title.
Possession of land is notice of whatever title or right the occupant has.
(a) Possession of land by a tenant is the possession of the landlord.
(b) So if, at the time of the sheriff's sale, and at the time when those claiming under the purchaser at such sale obtained their conveyances, the wife was in possession of this land either by herself or by her tenants, such possession was notice to such purchaser, and those claiming under him, of whatever right or title the wife had to this land.
The court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant; issues of fact being involved which could only be determined by a jury.
Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; W. W. Sheppard, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Sidney M. Sikes against J. B. Seckinger. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Mrs. Sidney M. Sikes, on March 30, 1925, brought her complaint against J. B. Seckinger, for the recovery of a described tract of land and mesne profits. In her petition she alleges that she attaches thereto "an abstract of her title on which she relies for a recovery." This abstract refers only to a deed from Victoria E. Sikes to the plaintiff, dated August 30, 1900, and sets up actual possession of the premises in dispute by the plaintiff under said deed since its date. In his answer the defendant denied that the plaintiff had title to the land, and her possession thereof. He alleged that he had title thereto. On the trial the plaintiff introduced the deed to herself from her mother-in-law, Victoria E. Sikes, above referred to, which was witnessed by her husband, J. P. R. Sikes, and by two other witnesses, one of whom was a notary public. The husband signed under the attestation clause, and beneath the signatures of the said two attesting witnesses. This deed recites a consideration of $5 and love and affection for the grantee. It was recorded on June 21, 1901. It embraces the premises in dispute. Plaintiff introduced oral testimony tending to establish the following facts:
She and J. P. R. Sikes were married on July 4, 1896. On the following Wednesday, Victoria E. Sikes, the mother of J. P. R. Sikes, and the plaintiff visited Fletcher Sikes. On their return Victoria E. Sikes said to plaintiff, "Let's go by; I want to show you your home." The husband of plaintiff was not with them. They went by the premises in dispute, and Victoria Sikes showed the plaintiff the lines around the premises and said to her, "This is your home, and I am going to give it to you, and I am going to make the deeds to you, and I want you to take care of it and raise the children on it." Mrs. Sikes did not then make a deed to the plaintiff. Afterwards she said to the plaintiff, "I am going to make the deed;" and the husband said, "Mother, make it to me." Thereupon she executed the deed to the husband on March 13, 1900, and turned it over to the plaintiff, who accepted and kept it for him. On August 30, 1900, the mother, with the approval of the husband, made to the plaintiff the deed under which she claims the premises in dispute. The husband then told the wife to burn the deed which his mother had made to him.
Plaintiff and her husband, under the above promise of his mother to the plaintiff, moved on these premises in January, 1897. Before they did so, the husband had the frame of the dwelling house up and one room finished. They finished the dwelling after they moved in. They put upon the premises before March 13, 1900, permanent and valuable improvements. The character and cost of these improvements are set out in the testimony of plaintiff. These improvements were put upon the place by the husband and those working for him, and from the proceeds of crops grown on the place. Plaintiff and her husband made these crops. She helped her husband in clearing the land. Plaintiff supervised the work of making the improvements on the land. The workers who helped her husband in making these improvements were paid out of the proceeds of the crops grown on the place. Plaintiff paid Victoria E. Sikes the $5 mentioned as a part of the consideration in the deed under which plaintiff claims title to these premises. Before the husband received his deed, some of the improvements had been put upon this land. Some were made after he received his deed from his mother, and some were made after the plaintiff got her deed to the premises. In 1907 plaintiff borrowed from the John Hancock Life Insurance Company $1,250, and secured its payment by a deed to this land. In 1912 executions against the husband were levied on this land. The wife filed a claim thereto. On the trial she withdrew this claim. This land was afterwards sold by the sheriff as the husband's property, on the first Tuesday in 1917, to Mike Edwards. It does not appear whether the land was sold under the executions against the husband, which were levied in 1912. Thereafter, on January 6, 1917, the wife made to Edwards a quitclaim deed to this land. She and her husband continued in possession of the land from 1917 to January, 1923, when she rented the same to Pharicy Jenkins. She testified that she made this quitclaim deed to Edwards for the purpose of enabling him to pay the debts of her husband. Edwards then made a deed to Lucius Sikes, her husband's brother, and Lucius Sikes made a deed to the husband, who afterwards procured a loan thereon. The plaintiff did not know of these transactions until after they had been completed.
The husband, on October 23, 1923, conveyed the premises to the defendant. None of these deeds were introduced in evidence but the plaintiff testified to the making of them. The plaintiff and her husband lived on these premises from January, 1897, until 1924, with the exception of two or three...
To continue reading
Request your trial