Teasley v. Jones, 20467
| Decision Date | 05 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20467,20467 |
| Citation | 215 Ga. 135,109 S.E.2d 514 |
| Parties | C. E. TEASLEY, Sr., et al. v. J. Henry JONES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lavender & Griffith, Elberton, for plaintiff in error.
Rupert A. Brown, Athens, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
J. Henry Jones brought his petition in Elbert Superior Court against C. E. Teasley, Sr., and Mrs. Leonia Membourne Brown, alleging that W. O. Jones died testate in January, 1931; that, at the time of his death, he owned, had title to, and was in possession of a lot of land 50 feet by 400 feet in the City of Elberton, described in paragraph 4 of the petition as lying between properties of the defendants, and being contiguous to Teasley on one side and Brown on the other; that this property was devised by the duly probated will of W. O. Jones to his wife, Mrs. Mollie G. Jones, which devise was duly assented to by his personal reprementatives; that Mrs. Mollie G. Jones thereby became vested with the title to the property, entered into possession of same, and was the owner thereof at the time of her death; that she died testate in July, 1952; and that, under her duly probated will, her executors conveyed the property by deed to the plaintiff, copy of which deed is attached to the petition as an exhibit; that, by virtue of this deed, the petitioner is now vested with the title to the land; that, on June 4, 1958, each of the defendants executed and delivered to the other a deed purporting to convey to the grantee in each deed one-half of the lot, copies of these deeds being attached to the petition as exhibits. Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to possession of said lot, and that defendants wrongfully and unlawfully kept him out of possession thereof; that the continued use by the defendants of petitioner's lot or any part of the same is a continuing trespass; that the defendants should be restrained and enjoined from using said lot or any part thereof as a means of ingress and egress, entering or squatting thereon or making any other use thereof which is inconsistent with the right and title of petitioner therein as the fee-simple owner of the same. He prays: (1) for process; (2) that the defendants be restrained from using said lot or any part thereof as a means of ingress or egress to their respective lots, or their squatting or entering thereon, or making any other use thereof which is inconsistent with the right and title of petitioner therein as the fee-simple owner thereof; (3) for a permanent injunction; (4) that title to said lot be decreed to be in petitioner; (5) that the deeds by the defendants to each other to a portion of the lot be delivered up, cancelled, and declared null and void, and of no effect; and (6) for general relief. To the petition the defendants filed their general and special demurrers, all of which were overruled, except paragraph 8...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Henderson
...allegations of fact which do not appear on the face of the petition are speaking demurrers and must be overruled. Teasley v. Jones, 215 Ga. 135, 137(2), 109 S.E.2d 514. Grounds of demurrer contending that a contract is not binding under the Statute of Frauds must be overruled where it does ......
-
Woodall v. Leachman, 40537
...speaking demurrer, this ground should have been overruled. Interstate Bond Co. v. Cullars, 189 Ga. 283(2), 5 S.E.2d 756; Teasley v. Jones, 215 Ga. 135(2), 109 S.E.2d 514. This is an in personam action for damages for wrongful acts allegedly beyond the defendant's duties as trustee in bankru......
-
Watson v. City of East Point
...161 S.E. 809; Gray v. Bradford, 194 Ga. 492, 494(1), 22 S.E.2d 43; Weimer v. Cauble, 214 Ga. 634, 637, 106 S.E.2d 781; Teasley v. Jones, 215 Ga. 135(1), 109 S.E.2d 514; Nuckolls v. Merritt, 216 Ga. 35, 38, 114 S.E.2d Section 147 of the Act of 1957 establishing a new charter for the City of ......
-
Milton Frank Allen Publications, Inc. v. Georgia Ass'n of Petroleum Retailers, Inc.
...§ 81-304; Regenstein v. J. Regenstein Co., 213 Ga. 157, 97 S.E.2d 693; Wright v. State, 217 Ga. 453, 122 S.E.2d 737; Teasley v. Jones, 215 Ga. 135, 137(2), 109 S.E.2d 514. Therefore, the general demurrer on the ground that defendant was acting beyond its corporate power and authority should......