Taylor v. Brown
Decision Date | 17 February 1928 |
Docket Number | 6114. |
Parties | TAYLOR et al. v. BROWN et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where deed conveyed life estates to grantee and wife with remainder to children of grantee and after death of grantee's wife children, one of whom attained majority and another of whom was married, conveyed interest in land to grantee who conveyed to defendants for value, two of grantee's children who affirmed deed after attaining majority could not recover interest in land from defendants, but remaining child was entitled to recover one-third undivided interest in land.
Error from Superior Court, Crisp County; D. A. R. Crum, Judge.
Action by Nora B. Taylor and others against J. H. Brown and another. Judgment for plaintiff Dallis H. Pitts, motion for new trial by plaintiff Taylor and another was overruled, and such plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
On June 9, 1900, D. H. Davis executed the following deed:
Sarah M. Pitts died on November 4, 1900. Surviving her were A. J. Pitts and their children, Nora B., Myrtis L., and Dallis H. Pitts, the last named having been born after the execution of the deed. Subsequently Nora B. became Taylor by marriage, and Myrtis L. became Smith by marriage. After the marriage of those two, and the attainment of majority by one of them, and while they were both married women, they, with their brother, Dallis H. Pitts, joined in a voluntary deed to A. J. Pitts, dated December 5, 1918, stating the consideration to be $1 and love and affection for their father, purporting to convey in fee simple all of their respective interests in the land. A. J. Pitts had previously been appointed statutory guardian for Nora B. and Myrtis L. Pitts, and was formally discharged as guardian after the date of said deed. On December 13, 1919, A. J. Pitts conveyed the land to J. H. Brown and W. H. Dorris for a consideration of $10,000. On October 3, 1921, A. J. Pitts died. On February 2, 1925, Nora B. Taylor, Myrtis L. Smith and Dallis H. Pitts instituted an action against said Brown and Dorris to recover the land. On the trial the jury found "in favor of the plaintiff Dallis H. Pitts." Nora B. Taylor and Myrtis L. Smith filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and they excepted.
Jas. H. Pate, of Ashburn, for plaintiffs in error.
Kirkland & Kirkland, of Metter, and Geo. H. Harris, of McRae, for defendants in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. The verdict is to be construed in connection with the pleadings, the evidence, and the charge of the court. Harvey v. Head, 68 Ga. 247. Three plaintiffs were suing jointly to recover the land, and the jury found for one of the plaintiffs alone.
It appears from the charge that the jury, having had the case under consideration, returned to the jury box, and the foreman asked the court the following question:
"If the jury should find in favor of one of the plaintiffs, what would become of the other interest?"
Whereupon the court charged as follows:
"If the jury should return a verdict in favor of one of the plaintiffs, naming him or her as the case may be, that would mean that the one plaintiff whom the jury finds in favor of would recover a one-third undivided interest in the lot of land sued for, and the defendants would hold the other two-thirds undivided interest in the lot of land sued for."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial