Wright v. Watters

• Decision Date: 11 February 1913
• Docket Number: 4,224.
• Citation: 77 S.E. 106,12 Ga.App. 308
• Parties: WRIGHT v. WATTERS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

77 S.E. 106

12 Ga.App. 308

WRIGHT v. WATTERS.

No. 4,224.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

February 11, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

Until the grantee in a deed has paid the purchase price in full, he is liable for any balance thereof remaining unpaid. It is within the power of a vendor, in agreeing to the sale of his land, to fix the consideration for which he will part with his title; and it is immaterial whether the consideration is to be paid wholly in money, or partly in money and other things of value. It may include payment of the debt of a third person who is not a party to the contract of sale.

Error from City Court of Floyd County; J. H. Reece, Judge.

Action by A. E. Wright against A. W. Watters. Judgment of dismissal and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Lipscomb Willingham & Wright and Nathan Harris, all of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Maddox & Doyal, of Rome, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL J.

The trial judge did not state the reasons for his judgment in the order dismissing the plaintiff's petition, but, as appears from the brief for the defendant, it would seem that the demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain her action, because Seaborn Wright was not a party to the deed, a portion of the consideration of which is made the basis of the suit. Counsel for the defendant strenuously insists that Mrs. Wright could not maintain the action against Watters, because she was in no way bound for her husband's original subscription, nor by the judgment rendered against him, and that any payment of the judgment on her part was a purely voluntary act, and in no way gave her the right to sue in this case.

We think the petition sets forth a good cause of action, and that the trial judge erred in dismissing it. Conceding that Mr. Wright is in no sense a party to the contract, and that his wife, who is the plaintiff, was in no way bound by the subscription, still we know of no rule of law which forbids her making the debt or obligation of any person in whom she is interested, or which she for any reason desires to pay, a part of the consideration of the purchase price of land which she is selling. The undertaking of the defendant to pay the subscription of Seaborn Wright, in her view of the case, is as much a part of the consideration of the deed as the $10,000 agreed to be paid in cash. It occupies the same relation to the deed in this case as if the purchase...