Wright v. Pritchett
| Decision Date | 10 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 19921,19921 |
| Parties | Mae WRIGHT et al. v. Lee PRITCHETT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William Butt, Herman J. Spence, Blue Ridge, for plaintiff in error.
H. G. Vandiviere, H. L. Buffington, Canton, P. J. McCutchen, Avary Dimmock, Jr., Ellijay, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiffs, as heirs at law of Mrs. W. T. Charles, brought a statutory action for land against Lee Pritchett. They allege themselves to be owners in fee of the described premises by virtue of a deed attached to their petition, executed on December 16, 1943, by Mrs. W. T. Charles in favor of B. J. Charles. They contend that under said deed, Mrs. Charles reserved to herself a life estate, and conveyed to B. J. Charles a life estate with remainder at his death to her heirs; and that, Mrs. Charles having died on July 31, 1949, and B. J. Charles having died on January 31, 1952, petitioners, as her heirs, are vested with a remainder in fee. The petition further alleges that the defendant is in possession of said property claiming title thereto by virtue of deeds from Mrs. W. T. Charles, and that Mrs. Charles is the common source of title. There is no allegation that the deeds of the defendant are younger in point of time than the deed under which the plaintiffs claim nor is there any allegation or fact set out to show the superiority of the plaintiffs' claim or to show that the deeds to the defendant did not convey a perfect title to him. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained and the petition dismissed, and to this judgment the plaintiffs except. Held:
1. Where a plaintiff brings a complaint for land under the Code procedure, his petition must show a complete title or other right to recover in order to withstand a general demurrer. See Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87, 60 S.E. 268; Chidsey v. Brookes, 130 Ga. 218, 60 S.E. 529; Powell, Actions for Land, pp. 41, 97; 18 Am.Jur. 73, § 83.
2. James v. Maddox, 153 Ga. 208(3), 111 S.E. 731; Smith v. Scarborough, 182 Ga. 157(2), 185 S.E. 105.
3. 'Where, in an action of complaint for land, the petition showed that the plaintiffs claimed as heirs at law of a decedent, suing with the consent of the administrator, and also showed on its face that their ancestor under whom they claimed had made a deed conveying the property to the defendant, and there was nothing to show that such deed did not convey a perfect title, the petition was properly dismissed on general demurrer.' Buchan v. Williamson, 131 Ga. 509, 62 S.E. 819.
4. Applying the principles of law stated above, the plaintiff failed to allege a cause of action. The petition shows upon its face that the defendant is in possession of the land, claiming title thereto under deeds from the plaintiffs' grantor, and there is no allegation or fact set forth to show that the title of the plaintiffs is superior to that of the defendant, nor is any other right to possession in the plaintiffs alleged. As the petition presently stands, it simply shows that the plaintiffs claim title to the land by virtue of a deed attached as an exhibit to their petition and that the defendant is in possession of the land claiming title thereto under deeds from the same grantor.
5. Furthermore, the deed relied upon by the plaintiffs does not, as they contend, grant to them a vested remainder in the property described therein. The deed from Mrs. Charles to B. J. Charles is in all respects and form a warranty deed, is attested as a deed, and conveys the property absolutely and in fee simple to the grantee with the express reservation that Mrs. Charles is to have possession, custody and control of the property, and issues, rents and profits thereof, for the duration of her life. Such a deed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thyer Mfg. Corp. v. Drake, 21242
...be effectively avoided or the petition is subject to general demurrer. Swofford v. Glaze, 206 Ga. 574, 57 S.E.2d 823; Wright v. Pritchett, 213 Ga. 865, 102 S.E.2d 602; Columbian Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 58 Ga.App. 150, 197 S.E. 925; Douglas v. MeNabb Realty Co., 78 Ga.App. 845, 52 S.......
-
Statham v. Kelly, No. S03A1041.
...fee with an inhibition against alienation is repugnant to the fee, and is therefore void." (Punctuation omitted.) Wright v. Pritchett, 213 Ga. 865, 867, 102 S.E.2d 602 (1958), citing with approval Farkas v. Farkas, 200 Ga. 886, 38 S.E.2d 924 (1946). In Wills v. Pierce, supra, the grantor ga......
-
White v. Howell
...a right as a tenant in common. See Code §§ 85-601, 85-602; Simpson v. Powell & Company, 158 Ga. 516, 123 S.E. 741; Wright v. Pritchett, 213 Ga. 865(5), 102 S.E.2d 602. We see nothing repugnant in such a limitation when she conveyed her interest in the property to the petitioners. The courts......
-
Baggett v. Chavous, 40081
...defense. Where, however, such defense is anticipated, it must be effectively avoided, or the complaint is bad.' Wright v. Pritchett, 213 Ga. 865(2), 102 S.E.2d 602; Columbian Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 58 Ga.App. 150(1), 197 S.E. 925; Leverett, Hall, Christopher, Georgia Procedure and ......