Smith v. Duhart

Decision Date13 January 1922
Docket Number(No. 2672.)
Citation152 Ga. 554,110 S.E. 301
PartiesSMITH . v. DUHART.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Assignee.]

Error from Superior Court, Houston County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.

Suit by Anderson Duhart against Mrs. G. W. Smith. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

R. D. Feagin, of Macon, and R. N. Holtzclaw, of Perry, for plaintiff in error.

Jule Felton, Jule W. Felton, and G. C. Robinson, all of Montezuma, for defendant in error.

GILBERT, J. [1-3] Headnotes 1, 2, and 3 do not require elaboration.

4. This is a proceeding in equity, praying for cancellation of an administrator's deed to a one-fourth interest in described land, and for injunction.

Ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial complains that the court, over objection of the defendant, permitted Anderson Duhart, the plaintiff, to testify as follows:

"I had an agreement with my father with reference to the sale of his interest in this land"

—the ground of objection being that the witness was incompetent to testify under Civil Code, § 5858, as to any transaction with his father, the father being dead, and the defendant, Mrs. G. W. Smith, holding a deed from the administrator of the deceased father, and relying upon the deed as her title to a one-fourth undivided interest In the land, and the plaintiff relying upon an alleged agreement with his father and his performance of the same as the basis of his right to recover from the defendant in the case.

Ground 2 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial complains that the court permitted Anderson Duhart, the plaintiff, to testify as follows:

"I told him [Mr. Bloodworth] my father and myself had made a trade about the land" —the objection raised at the time being the same as that stated in the first ground. The admission of this evidence over the objection raised was not error. The suit was instituted by Anderson Duhart, claiming under a parol contract fully performed with his deceased father, and the section of the Code cited does not make him an incompetent witness in his own behalf. The defendant in the suit claimed under a deed from the administrator of the deceased. The grantee in the deed was not an immediate assignee or transferee, such as contemplated in Code, § 5S58, par. 1; and therefore the evidence was not incompetent. Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 528, 69 S. E. 817; Causey v. White, 143 Ga. 7, 84 S. E. 58; Purvis v. Paste, 144 Ga. 16, 85 S. E. 1012. And compare Kramer v. Spradlin, 148 Ga. 805, 98 S. E. 487.

5. The evidence authorized the jury to find that in the year 1873 the land in question had been conveyed by warranty deed to the plaintiff's mother, Elizabeth Duhart, and her children, and that Elizabeth Duhart subsequently died, leaving Anderson Duhart as her only child and Hector Duhart, her husband. Later, on the death of Hector Duhart, J. W. Bloodworth qualified as administrator on the estate of the latter. He applied for and obtained an order for the sale of a one-fourth undivided interest In the land described in the deed in question as the property of Hector Duhart, deceased. Pursuant to such order the property was sold to Mrs. G. W. Smith, the defendant in this case; and the administrator, in his official capacity, duly executed to the purchaser a deed purporting to convey the one-fourth undivided interest in the land. This suit is by Anderson Duhart for the purpose of canceling this administrator's deed. On the trial J. W. Bloodworth, administrator, testified in part as follows:

"I never saw the land. * * * I did not take any legal steps to reduce it to my possession; I did not know how."

Anderson Duhart, the plaintiff, testified in part as follows:

"After the death of my mother my father went in possession of the land. I never surrendered possession of the land voluntarily to anybody. I rented the land out the year after my fath...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Southern Ry. Co v. Wessinger, (No. 15018.)
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 24 de abril de 1924
    ...states a correct principle of law applicable to the case, that some other correct and appropriate instruction was not given (Smith v. Du Hart, 152 Ga. 551 [3], 110 S. E. 301); but, regardless of this rule of practice, we entertain the opinion that the court's charge as a whole, in the absen......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Wessinger
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 24 de abril de 1924
    ...of law applicable to the case, that some other correct and appropriate instruction was not given (Smith v. Du Hart, 152 Ga. 554 [3], 110 S.E. 301); regardless of this rule of practice, we entertain the opinion that the court's charge as a whole, in the absence of appropriate request, suffic......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Heaton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 29 de novembro de 1939
    ... ... [6 S.E.2d 342] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [6 S.E.2d 343] ...          Wheeler ... & Kenyon, R. W. Smith, Jr., and Chas. J. Thurmond, all of ... Gainesville, for plaintiff in error ...          Hamilton ... Kimsey, Sam Kimsey, and Herbert ... principle of law applicable to the case that some other ... correct and appropriate instruction was not given. Smith ... v. Duhart, 152 Ga. 554 (3), 110 S.E. 301. We repeat here ... that the charge which the defendant contends should have been ... given would have been no more ... ...
  • Southern Ry. Co v. Heaton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 29 de novembro de 1939
    ...a correct principle of law applicable to the case that some other correct and appropriate instruction was not given. Smith v. Duhart, 152 Ga. 554 (3), 110 S.E. 301. We repeat here that the charge which the defendant contends should have been given would have been no more favorable to the de......
  • 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