Wife v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 31 July 1872
• Citation: 46 Ga. 241
• Parties: EDWIN R. ANTHONY AND WIFE, plaintiff in error. v. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS et al., defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

46 Ga. 241

EDWIN R. ANTHONY AND WIFE, plaintiff in error. v. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1872.)

Injunction. Condition in deed. Covenant. Notice. Estoppel. Before Judge Cole. Bibb county. At Chambers. July 11th, 1872.

Edwin R. Anthony and his wife, Susan S. Anthony, filed their bill against Alexander H. Stephens, William P. Carlos, Austin Brighthaup and his wife, Rose Brighthaupt making the following case:

Susan S. Anthony, while a widow, purchased three lots in the city of Macon, lying side by side. She married Edwin *R. Anthony in the month of May, 1862, his marital rights thereby attaching to said property, though he generally allowed his said wife to manage the same. The complainants reside on oneof said lots, one is vacant, and the third is the subject-matter of this litigation. Alexander H. Stephens approached the said Susan S. for the purpose of purchasing said lot, with a view, as he then stated, to building a house thereon for himself and his mother\'s family. Previous to this time said Susan S. had had frequent applications from persons of color to purchase said lot, but had refused to sell to them because such a disposition of said property would have injured the sale of the other vacant lot and the value of her house. Alexander H. Stephens, knowing these facts, and with the understanding that he would build and reside thereon, purchased the said lot for the sum of $900, $600 of which amount was paid in cash, and $300 some six or eight months thereafter, (on April 9th, 1869.) when said Susan S. executed a deed to said lot to Mrs. Emeline Stephens, as guardian for said Alexander H. Some time after the execution of said deed, Austin Brighthaupt, a person of color, was seen examining said lot, and said Susan S., fearing that said Stephens would sell to him, she sent her son to said Stephens to protest against it. Stephens replied, that Austin was very anxious to buy, but that he would not sell to him if he could find another purchaser who was white. Soon after this Austin took possession of the lot, built a fence around it and planted shade trees; but when said Stephens was about to execute a conveyance to said Austin, it was discovered that the deed from said Susan S., never having been signed by her said husband, conveyed no title. Said Edwin JR. declined positively to sign the deed, as he knew it would affect the value of the two remaining lots. Stephens then proposed to take the lot back from Austin, and said that one Green J. Blake had agreed to lend him the money to pay Austin, and that he would agree in writing that if complainants paid to him a stipulated price within three months, and would both sign the deed, he would convey the lot back to them. *This agreement was drawn up, signed and delivered to complainants on March 4th, 1872. On the same day a second deed was executed to said lot, signed by both of complainants, containing the following clause attached to the warranty: "On the express understanding and agreement on the part of the said Alexander H. Stephens that the lot of land so conveyed is never to be sold to or occupied by negroes." Stephens promised to return the old deed, but has failed to do so. Soon after this Austin commenced to build on said lot. The son of said Susan S. called on Stephens and asked him what it meant. He replied that he did not know whether Austin intended to build on the...