Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Wells rs. Ilarper, cxecutor.

the bond is $27.25, and that the bond contains no description of that portion of the general tract which was sold by Richards to MeMekin and which Richards is to convey to McMekin, according to the terms of the bond, when the notes shall be paid. The injunction was appled for in December, 1887, within less than two months after the papers above referred to bear date.

If the purpose of this proceeding be to obtain an authoritative construction of the deed from Ellington to Mrs. Anderson and the children of Anderson, these children, who it appears are still minors, ought to be made parties. They are vitally interested in the question. All we rule at present is that, taking in the whole field of judicial vision, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

WELLS vs. HARPER, executor.

When one applies to an executor or administrator for information as

to the title to land advertised for sale by such executor or administrator, or as to its quality or quantity, it is the same as if application were made to one who had no interest in the land. An executor or administrator cannot warrant the title; and this being so, his statements fix no liability upon the estate he represents nor upon himself. A purchaser at such a sale takes subject to the rule caveat emptor. July 11, 1888.

Administrators and executors. Misrepresentation. Vendor and purchaser. Before Judge Fort. Macon superior court. November term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Lyon & Estes, J. W. IIAYGOOD and F. T. SNEAD, for plaintiff in error.

Wells us. Harper, executor.

W. H. Fish and E. G. SIMMONS, contra.

BLANDFORD, Justice.

Harper, who was executor of Drumright, advertised a certain tract of land for sale. Wells applied to Harper to know something about the title, and was informed by Harper that the testator had a good title; whereas, it is alleged, he did not have a good title, the property having been conveyed to Drumright by a married woman in payment of her husband's debt. The land was brought to sale, and was bid off by Wells. Wells afterwards refused to comply with his bid, and the property was subsequently sold by the executor, and at the second sale did not sell for as much as it did when it was sold to Wells; and this action was brought by the executor against Wells to recover the difference. Wells contended that the executor's representations as to the title, although conceded to have been made in good faith, were a fraud in law, and that therefore he ought not to be compelled to comply with his bid.

We are of the opinion that when one applies to an executor or administrator for information as to the title to land, or as to its quality or quantity, it is the same as if he were to apply to somebody else who had no interest in it whatever. IIe cannot warrant the title. That being so, the statement of the executor or administrator fixes no liability upon the estate nor upon himself. A purchaser at such a sale purchases with his

eyes open. Caveat emptor is the rule. The court below held according to the views we have just expressed; and the judgment is affirmed.

Burger vs. The State of Georgia. -McMillan vs. Ambrose.

BURGER vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

The confession of defendant below was sufficiently corroborated by

evidence that he was found on the bed with the girl in the night, and had been there for twenty minutes before he was disturbed. May 4, 1888.

Criminal law. Confession. Corroboration. Before Judge IIUTCHINS. Gwinuett superior court. September term, 1887.

Report unnecessary.

W. E. Simmons, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

E. T. Brown, solicitor-general, by J. H. LUMPKIN, for the State.

SIMMONS, Justice.

This record shows that on the trial of this case in the court below, the State proved that the defendant confessed the crime. The only question made here is, whether there was sufficient corroboration of that confession to authorize the finding of the jury. We think there was.

The defendant was found on the bed with the girl in the night, and had been there for twenty minutes before he was disturbed ; and we think this was sufficient corroboration of his confessions to authorize the jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Judgment affirmed.

MCMILLAN vs. AMBROSE.

The only question brought up for review in this case is one of fact,

and the discretion of the judge below will not be interfered with. May 4, 1888.

[ocr errors]

McMillan 28. Ambrose.

Certiorari. Before Judge HUTCHINS. Gwinnett superior court. September term, 1887.

In an affidavit for possessory warrant sued out by J.D. Ambrose, the property was described as “a certain beegum, with bees in it, of the value of $2, the same that was at Mrs. Dyar's for several weeks.” At the trial in a justice's court, the property was awarded to plaintiff. The defendant sued out a certiorari, assigning error in that the justice erred in not dismissing the warrant because the bee-gum was not properly described ; also in letting plaintiff's witnesses testify as to sayings of one party in the absence of the other, and then refusing to let defendant's witnesses testify to the same facts; also in not allowing J. D. Ambrose to be called back to the stand to explain his testimony; also in entering judgment contrary to evidence, etc.

By the answer of the magistrate, it appeared that on the trial, the plaintiff showed that his brother Thomas had bought three bee-gums at an administrator's sale at the Dyar place; that he sold one to McMillan and carried one home and sold the third to plaintiff'; that plaintiff went, next morning, to settle for the articles his brother had bought and found there his bee-gum which he had bought from his brother; that he took possession of it, and left it there in the possession of one Hill, his agent, to keep for him; that he told Hill it was his and Hill promised to keep it for him; and when he went back for it about eight weeks afterwards, he found that McMillan had carried it off.

The defendant showed that he had bought both gums from plaintiff's brother on the day the latter bought them; that he bought the two gums from Thomas Ambrose which were not carried off by Thomas on the day the latter bought them; that he covered up one of

McMillan vs. Ambrose.

the gums and carried off the other; and that, on being informed by Hill that he wanted the gum which had been left with him moved, he went back and carried it home in the day time.

Both plaintiff and defendant were shown to be of good character. One of plaintiff's witnesses swore that when McMillan came back to the Dyar place the day after the sale, he told witness that he would give Ambrose fifteen cents for the gum; but this was denied by defendant. Defendant also showed that he and Thomas Ambrose went to the parties in charge of the sale and tried to get the entry of a bid for two of the gums changed from Ambrose to the defendant; but this was refused, they being told that they must arrange it between themselves.

The magistrates further answered that the description in the affidavit was full enough to notify the sheriff to seize the property and arrest the defendant and that it was sufficient. They denied that they gave one side more advantage than the other as to the testimony; and stated that they did rule out hearsay evidence as to what McMillan said about the trade when Ambrose was absent, and would have done the same as to Ambrose.

The certiorari was dismissed, and the defendant excepted.

L. F. McDonald and F. F. JUHAN, for plaintiff in

error.

C. II. BRAND, contra.

SIMMONS, Justice.

The official report shows the facts in this case. No error of law is alleged in the rulings of the court below. The only question brought here for review is a question

« PředchozíPokračovat »