Smith v. Estes

• Decision Date: 16 May 1907
• Parties: SMITH v. ESTES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

57 S.E. 685

128 Ga. 368

SMITH v. ESTES et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 16, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Where in an action for the recovery of land, there was raised a collateral issue of forgery on a deed under which the defendant claimed, and this special issue alone was submitted to the jury, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pass upon an assignment of error complaining of the refusal of a new trial on such issue, when there has been no final disposition of the main case.

Error from Superior Court, Troup County; A. D. Freeman, Judge.

Action by M. L. Smith against T. W. Estes and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

E. T Moon and W. T. Tuggle, for plaintiff in error.

Longley & Longley, for defendants in error.

FISH C.J. (after stating the facts).

It is clear, from a consideration of the foregoing statement of facts, that the bill of exceptions in this case was prematurely sued out, as there has been no final disposition of the main case, and the collateral issue of forgery raised by the plaintiff as to a deed held by the defendant Estes, if it had been determined as plaintiff in error contends it should have been, would not have finally disposed of the main case. If the deed which she attacked as a forgery was, as she alleged, not the deed which she claimed she was fraudulently induced to execute, then it is manifest that, even if the issue of forgery had been determined in her favor, this last-mentioned deed, which she admits she executed, would have to be set aside before she could recover the property in dispute; and the issue which she raised as to its fraudulent procurement, and the purchase of the property by the defendant Estes with knowledge of this fact, would still remain in the case. On the other hand, if the deed upon which the issue of forgery was made was really the deed which the plaintiff alleged she was fraudulently induced to execute then the verdict finding this deed not to be a forgery would simply leave the case where it was before this issue was raised, and the question of its fraudulent procurement, and the further question of knowledge of this fact by the defendant Estes when he purchased the property, would still be in the case. But, aside from these considerations, it is obvious that no verdict rendered upon the issue of forgery could be a final disposition of the case in which this collateral issue was raised, for...