Sikes v. Seckinger, (No. 5526.)

• Decision Date: 15 April 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 5526.)
• Citation: 164 Ga. 96,137 S.E. 833
• Parties: SIKES. v. SECKINGER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

164 Ga. 96

137 S.E. 833

SIKES.

v.SECKINGER.

(No. 5526.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 15, 1927.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A donee of land under a parol gift, based upon a meritorious consideration, who, with the Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; W. W. Sheppard, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Sidney M. Sikes against J. B. Seekinger. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Mrs. Sidney M. Sikes, on March 30, 1925, brought her complaint against J. B. Seekinger, 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 im provements 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 years, when they lived in Glennville. She was living on this land at the time of the sheriff's sale to Edwards, and when the latter sold to L. G. Sikes. Plaintiff rented this land to Pharicy Jenkins for the year 1923. The defendant rented it to Jim Futch for the year 1924. Futch wanted to get possession of this land before January 1, 1924, and in November or December paid Pharicy Jenkins $5 or $10 to surrender possession to him, which was done. Plaintiff testified that she did not know that her husband was going to sell this place to the defendant. Her husband, on April 25, 1924, and some time before his death, toldher that he had sold it to the defendant. It was in either November or December, 1923, that Jim Futch had gone on the place. The defendant paid to the husband on the purchase money of this place $600 cash, gave four notes of $600 each, and assumed a debt on the place of $2,000. When the husband died, one of these notes was found in his trunk, and the plaintiff took possession of it. Before bringing suit, the plaintiff offered to give this note back to the defendant. This note was dated Ferbuary 7, 1923, and was due August 15, 1926. It is signed by C. R. Sikes, payable to the order of J. P. R. Sikes, and indorsed by the defendant. The plaintiff has seen the other notes in her husband's possession. She never received any of the purchase money paid by the defendant to her husband for this land. At the time the mother made the deed to this land to her son, she said she wanted to make it to the plaintiff. The value of the land for mesne profits was shown. S. J. Kicklighter, in behalf of the defendant, testified that he had leased from the husband of the plaintiff, in the fall of 1922, the turpentine boxes on the land in dispute, for four years, but the husband of plaintiff was living on the place at the time, and the plaintiff raised no objection to this transaction.

The court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for new trial upon the general grounds. By an amendment to her motion she added two grounds. In the first of these she complains that the court erred in refusing to allow her to testify that she made a quitclaim deed to Mike Edwards, to enable him to dispose of the property to pay her husband's debts, and that Edwards was to make her back a bond for title to that portion of it constituting the land now in dispute; that Edwards said he did not have a blank bond; that he was in a hurry to go, and promised to send her the bond for title but never did, that he would stand between plaintiff and all trouble, as he knew it would not take but just a part of the land to pay off the debts; "said that, if I would trust him to attend to it he would give me his bond for title and that as quick as he got the debts paid off he would make the deed back to me, but he did not do it;" and that she still stayed in possession of it. Counsel for the defendant objected to this testimony on the ground that it was ingrafting on the deed an oral condition which would not bind a bona fide purchaser. The court sustained the objection and rejected this testimony. In the second special ground the plaintiff sets up the material facts in her proof upon which she based her right to recover in this case, and alleges that at the conclusion of the evidence counsel for the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant under the pleadings and evidence, which the court did, and thereupon entered up judgment against the plaintiff. To this ruling of the court in directing a verdict for the de fendant and entering up judgment against the plaintiff on such verdict, the plaintiff excepts and says that the court erred in directing said verdict and entering up said judgment thereon, as the same is against the evidence and is without law or evidence to sustain the same, but, on the contrary, plaintiff contends that a verdict, if directed at all, should have been directed in her favor and against the defendant. Upon this ruling she assigns error. The court overruled the motion for new trial, and the plaintiff excepted.

W. T. Burkhalter, of Reidsville, for plaintiff in error.

J. T. Grice and C. L. Cowart, both of Glennville, for defendant in error.

HINES, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. 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. Floyd v. Floyd, 97 Ga. 124, 24 S. E. 451; Looney v. Watson, 97 Ga. 235, 22 S. E. 935; ...