Thompson v. Ray

• Decision Date: 17 July 1893
• Parties: THOMPSON et ux. v. RAY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 59

92 Ga. 285

THOMPSON et ux. v. RAY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 17, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A parol gift of land, accompanied by possession, based upon a consideration meritorious, and to some extent valuable, is not of itself sufficient to pass title into the donee. Nor will the making of valuable and permanent improvements upon the property, after the death of the donor, complete the gift, although the materials for such improvements may have been ordered during the donor's lifetime, and with his knowledge.

2. An interrogatory which assumes the existence of a material and vitally important fact, and suggests an answer which will establish that fact, is leading, and for this reason there was no error in rejecting the answer to the same; it not appearing or being suggested that the objection was not in writing, or that it was not made at the proper time.

3. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Error from superior court, Campbell county; S.W. Harris, Judge.

Action by L. R. Ray, as administrator, against J. E. Thompson and wife, to recover land. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Roan & Golightly, for plaintiffs in error.

Thos W. Latham, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J.

1. The facts appear in the reporter's statement. It will be observed that the evidence fails to show that Mrs. Thompson was entitled to the land in dispute under a contract of purchase with the deceased, Mr. Reid. At best, her claim of title rests solely upon a parol gift, accompanied by possession, based upon a consideration which was meritorious and perhaps, to some extent, valuable. It is well-settled law that this, of itself, would not be sufficient to pass title into Mrs. Thompson. It was insisted, however, that, under the provisions of section 3189 of the Code, she was entitled to the premises, because of having made valuable improvements upon the faith of the gift. Although there is evidence to show that some of the materials for the making of these improvements were ordered during the lifetime of Mr. Reid and that he knew of this fact, it is admitted that the improvements themselves were not made until after his death. In our opinion, therefore, the gift never became complete. It was within the power of the deceased to revoke it at any time before the improvements were actually made. He could have done this even after the...