Truluck v. Roe
| Decision Date | 31 March 1846 |
| Docket Number | No. 2.,2. |
| Citation | 1 Ga. 3 |
| Parties | John Doe ex dem. James H. TRULUCK and Sutton H. TruLOCK and Reuben, Herndon, plaintiff's in error. vs. Richard Roe, casual ejector, and John Peeples, tenant in possession, and James Simmons, and others, co-defendants, and defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Ejectment.
This was an action of Ejectment, tried in the Superior Court of the county of Cass, before Judge Wright. The transcript of the record discloses that this action was predicated upon two several demises: the firstfrom James H. and Sutton H. Truluck, jointly and the second from Reuben Herndon, for the recovery of lot of land known as number one hundred and six, in the twenty-third district of the second section of, originally, Cherokee, now Cass county, aforesaid. At the February term, 184G, of said Superior Court, the said action came on to be heard; and on behalf of plaintiff, a grant of said lot of land from the State of Georgia to James Matthews was offered, and read in evidence to the jury.
The counsel for the plaintiff then tendered a deed from James Matthews, conveying said lot of land to the lessors, James H. and Sutton H. Truluck, Jointly, which deed is in the words and figures following:
This Indenture, made the twenty-ninth of January, a. D. 1833, between James Matthews, of the county
and State aforesaid, of the one part, and James H. Truluck and Sutton H. Truluck, of the same place, of the other part: Witnesseth, that the said James Matthews, for and id consideration of the sum of one hundred dol lars, to him in hand paid, at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, convey and confirm unto said James 11. and Sutton H. Truluck, their heirs and assigns, all that tract or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Cherokee county, known and distinguished by lot number one hundred and six, in the twenty-third district second section, of said county, containing one hundred and sixty acres, more or less, to have and to hold said tract of land, with all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances thereof whatsoever, to the said James H. and Sutton H. Truluck, being, belonging, or in anywise appertaining, with the remainder and remainders, reversion and reversions, rents, issues and profits thereof to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of them, the said James H. and Sutton H. Truluck, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, in fee simple. And the said James Matthews, his heirs, executors and administrators, and all and every person or persons, shall and will warrant, and forever defend, by virtue of these presents. in witness whereof the said James Matthews hath hereunto set his hand and affixed his seal, the day and year first above written.
James X Matthews, [Seal J
Thomas Sanders.
Acknowledged in the presence of me, Wiley Pearce, J. P.
Georgia, Cass County,
Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court.
Recorded in book D. of Deeds, page 291. June 21st, 1839.
Chester Hawkes, Clerk.
Which was objected to by defendants' counsel, on the ground that the signing, and delivery thereof, was not sufficiently proven, to authorize the same to be read in evidence to the jury; which objection was sustained by the court below, the deed rejected, and the plaintiff thereupon nonsuited.
To all which the plaintiff in error excepted.
Wm. H. Underwood, John A. Jones and Wm. Y. Hansell, counselfor plaintiff in error, relied upon the Registry of Acts of this State; Prin. Dig. 162, 166, 167; and Hotchkiss Stat. Laws of Georgia, 418.
T. H. Trippe, W. Akin and D.R. Mitchell, counsel for defendants In error, cited Jackson ex dem. Wycoff vs. Humphrey 1, Johns. Rep. 498; Jackson ex dun. Parker and others vs. Philips, 9 cowcn, 94; Dibble vs. D. and B. P. Royers, 18 wend. 53(5; Jackson ex dem. Merritt and Stanton vs. Gumaer, 2 Cowen, 552.
By the court—Warner, Judge.
The error assigned in this case is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawn v. Chastain
... ... § 6-1002(a), both before and after the 1965 amendment ... In the first decision of this court, Doe ex dem. Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 1 (1846), the defendant in error (appellee) moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions because it had not been made to appear that bond and security had been given. Construing the predecessor of Code § 6-1002, Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin wrote for the court (1 Ga. at 3): "The ... ...
-
Beadles v. Bowen, 39473
...of his social and official duties.' Beavers v. Le Sueur, 188 Ga. 393, 403(3), 3 S.E.2d 667, 673 (emphasis added). Accord: Doe ex dem. Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 3, 5; English v. Poole, 31 Ga.App. 581(4), 121 S.E. 589; Suddath v. Blanchard & Calhoun, 39 Ga.App. 262(2), 146 S.E. 798; Georgia C......
-
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Robinson
...required to rule adversely to the claimant on this enumeration. From the very first case published in the Georgia Reports, Doe ex dem. Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 3, the courts have consistently ruled the presumption exists that public officers have acted in compliance with the law. See the n......
-
In re Hammett
...Glover v. Cox, 137 Ga. 684, 73 S.E. 1068, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 191. The presumption of official regularity and duty done obtains (Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 3; v. Irvin, 39 Ga. 22), and aid meagerness, ambiguity, and even silence. Thus, though probate by an unofficial witness, showing only signi......