Thompson v. Manly
| Decision Date | 31 August 1854 |
| Docket Number | No. 44.,44. |
| Citation | 16 Ga. 440 |
| Parties | Alexander Thompson, plaintiff in error. vs. William Manly and others, defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
In Equity, in Carroll Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Warner, June Term, 1854.
This bill was filed by Alexander Thompson against William, Peter and John Manly, Joseph R. Richards, John Long and B. M. Long. The bill states, that at the February Term, 1853, of Carroll Superior Court, an action of ejectment was commenced by John Doe on the several demises of William, Peter and John Manly, heirs at law of William Manly, deceased. Joseph R. Richards and John and B. M. Long against the complainant, as tenant in possession, for lot of land number ninety-six in the ninth district of Carroll County; to which action complainant filed the pleas of not guilty, and Statute of Limitations; that at the August Term of said Court, 1853, a trial was had, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff; from which complainant has entered an appeal. The bill charges that the plaintiffs in ejectment rely for a recovery, upon a plat and grant from the State to the heirs at law of Wm. Manly; and that William, Peter and John Manly are such heirs; and that they gave in and drew said lot; (the said plot and grant being in possession of John and B. M. Long) also upon a deed from said William, Peter and John Manly to Joseph R. Richards, dated 2d Dec. 1851, for and in consideration of the sum of $75; and upon a deed from Richards to John and B. M. Long, dated 20th Sept. 1852, for and in consideration of $175.
The bill further charges, that at the time the Manlys sold to Richards and Richards to the Longs, the land was worth $800, and is now worth $1000; that complainant purchased said lot in the year 1850, from Samuel Bowling, who, together with those under whom he claimed, had held the actual, peaceableand notorious possession of the same from the year 1831 or 1832, under color of title and claim of right; that he, complainant, purchased said lot in good faith, believing he bought a good title; went into possession and made valuable improvements, thereby greatly increasing its value; that complainant continued in open, notorious and peaceable possession of said land, up to the commencement of said action of ejectment; that said Manlys, on the 2d day of September, 1851, sold and conveyed said lot of land to Richards, (they having drawn said land as the heirs at law of Wm. Manly) without having been in possession of said land or of the remainder and reversion, or having received the rents and profits of the same, for the space of one whole year, next before the said bargain and sale and conveyance, contrary to the Statute of Henry VIII; that said Richards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. Jackson
...Minn. 114, 120. Nor can a party have a standing in chancery where he has a plain remedy at law. 1 Hempstead Cir. Ct. 114, 115; Thompson v. Manly, 16 Ga. 440, 442; Coughron v. Swift, 18 Ill. 414; Echols v. Hammond, 30 Miss. 177; Norwich Ry. v. Story, 17 Conn. 364; Janney v. Spedden, 38 Mo. 3......
-
Levering v. Schnell
...is effectual and complete. There remains then nothing to call into action the extraordinary functions of a court of chancery. Thompson v. Manly, 16 Ga. 440, 442; Echols v. Hammond, 30 Miss. 177; Moore v. Wingate, 53 Mo. 411, 412; Coughron v. Swift, 18 Ill. 414; Janney v. Spedden, 38 Mo. 402......
-
Maggi v. Sylvan Circle Apartments, 17332
...for the intervention of a court of equity. 'A demurrer will lie to a bill in equity when there is an adequate remedy at law.' Thompson v. Manly, 16 Ga. 440. The cases of Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Shiver, 125 Ga. 218, 53 S.E. 610, and East Atlanta Bank v. Limbert, 191 Ga. 486, 12 S.E.2d ......