« PředchozíPokračovat »
Railway Co., Atchison, T. & S.
F., v. State (Okla.) 992 Chicago, M. & St. P.,
Alexander v. (Mo.) 867 Rapuano, Sisk v.
(Conn.) 1291 Rawlins Nat. Bark, Capitol Hill State Bank v.
(Wyo.) 937 Rawls, Enterprise v.
(Ala.) 1175 Re Ferrel
(Wash.) 820 Hinkelman
(Cal.) 1222 Hosford
(Kan.) 142 Kielsmark
(Iowa) 156 Tinsley
(Iowa) 826 Reagen, Com. v.
(Mass.) 1230 Reed, Cox v.
(Miss.) 5 Reese, State v.
(Wash.) 1018 Riley v. Wallace
(Ky.) 337 Ringgold County, Stahl v. (Iowa) 185 Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. Wryn
(Okla.) 859 Roberts v. Criss
(C. C. A.) 698 Rodgers v. Rodgers
(N. Y.) 274 Rogers v. Williard
(Ark.) 1115 v. Willyard
(Ark.) 1115 Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore
& Tierney .... (C. C. A.) 1415
Knitting Co... (C. C. A.) 1415 Rubenstein, W, B.,Mfg, Co. v.
(Mass.) 1283 Rust, Trumbauer v.
(S. D.) 10
Smith v. Dirckx
(Mo.) 510 Hickman v.
(S. C.) 1274 Merchants' Nat. Bank v.
(S. C.) 1274 Smits (Simon) & Co., Di Ferdinando v.
(Eng. C. A.) 358 Sookey, Com. v.
; (Mass.) 1230 Southwestern Bell Teleph. Co.,
Clay County Co-
(Miss.) 1321 State, Atchison, T. & S. F. R.
(Okla.) 992 v. Law
(Iowa) 194 v. McCullagh
(Kan.) 980 ex rel. Scherber v. Probate Ct.
(Minn.) 242 v. Reese
(Wash.) 1018 ex rel. Fitch v. State
Bd. of School Land
(Wyo.) 539 State Bd. of School Land
Comrs., State ex rel.
(Wyo.) 639 Stevens, Funk v.
(Neb.) 639 Stewart, Knickerbocker Ice Co. V.
(U. S.) 1145 Stockton Nat. Bank v. Home Ins. Co.
(Kan.) 1304 Stone, Skinner v.
(Ark.) 808 Stults, Saunders v.
(Iowa) 394 Swann v. Hines
(C. C. A.) 1438
Techt v. Hughes
(N. Y.) 166 Tinsley, Re
(Iowa) 826 Tisdale v. Eubanks
(N. C.) 374 Trumbauer v. Rust
(S. D.) 10 Turner Construction Co., Union Terminal Co. v.
(C. C. A.) 880 Tuttle v. Winchell ... (Neb.) 814
St. Louis Union Trust Co., Ker
(Mo.) 288 Saunders, McDonough v. (Ala.) 419 v. Stults
(Iowa) 394 Schaefer, Uden v.
(Wash.) 1001 Scherber, State rel., v.
Probate Ct. (Minn.) 242 Schiller Piano Co. v. Illinois
(Ill.) 454 Schneider v. Schneider (Cal.) 1386 Schooley v. Schooley
(Iowa) 110 Schueler, Hays v.
(Kan.) 1433 Sedlacek, Melicker v. (Iowa) 259 Mellicker v.
(Iowa) 259 Shackleford v. Shackleford .. (Ark.) 730 Shaull v. Shaull ..
(Iowa) 15 Sheppard, Nuzum v. (W. Va.) 1024 Shine v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
(Mass.) 1075 Shugart Bros., Pitner v. .... (Ga.) 1399 Simpson v. McGee
(Miss.) 4 Sisk v. Rapuano
(Conn.) 1291 Skinner v. Stone
Watson, Dodson v. .. (Tex.) 583 W. B. Mfg. Co. v. Rubenstein
(Mass.) 1283 West Cache Sugar Co.
Hendrickson .... (Utah) 216 Western Cold Storage Co., People ex rel. McCorm
(Ill.) 437 Whitaker v. Lane
(Va.) 1157 White v. Levarn
(Vt.) 1219 Whittinghill Woodward County
(Okla.) 910 Williams v. Canary (C. C. A.) 726 Williard, Rogers v.
(Ark.) 1115 Willyard, Rogers v.
Wimpey v. Ledford
(Mo.) .7 Winchell, Tuttle v.
(Neb.) 814 Winner v. Winner
(Wis.) 919 Woods Lumber Co. v. Moore (Cal.) 549 Woodward County, Whittinghill v.
(Okla.) 910 Wray Farmers' Grain Co., Burns v.
(Colo.) 1179 Wryn, Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. V. ...
JOHN W. COLLIER, Admr., etc., of H. J. Collier, Deceased, Plff. in Err.,
Georgia Supreme Court-February 15, 1917.
(146 Ga. 476, 91 S. E. 551.) Deed - to take effect at death effect.
1. Where an instrument in the form of and attested as a deed contains a clause that it is "to go into effect at the" signer's death, and where there is no other indication as to the intention of the signer, and the paper is duly delivered, it will be construed to be a deed postponing possession.
[See note on this question beginning on page 23.] Appeal - denial of continuance.
2. In view of the circumstances at discretion in overruling the motion for tending the trial and the character of a continuance. the case, the court did not abuse his [See 6 R. C. L. 549.]
Headnotes by GILBERT, J.
ERROR to the Superior Court for Echols County (Thomas, J.) to review a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and overruling a motion for new trial, in an action brought to recover possession of certain land. Affirmed. Statement by Gilbert, J.:
plaintiffs. The defendant moved Ora Lee Carter and Mrs. Jennie for a new trial, which was refused, Bell Carter brought an action of and he excepted. ejectment against John W. Collier, Upon the trial the plaintiffs inindividually, and as administrator troduced in evidence a warranty of the estate of H. J. Collier, de deed from H. J. Collier to Ora Lee ceased. The verdict was for the Carter and Mrs. Jennie Bell Carter,
dated March 9, 1911, conveying the Cotton States L. Ins. Co. v. Edwards, land in dispute. Among other 74 Ga. 220; Poppell v. State, 71 Ga. things, the deed stipulated that it 276; Wright v. State, 18 Ga. 383. was “to go into effect at the said H.
A continuance on account of the abJ. Collier's death.” Two of the at
sence of counsel is largely discretiontesting witnesses swore that they
ary. witnessed the deed at the request of
Loyd v. State, 45 Ga. 72; Whitley v.
Clegg, 120 Ga. 1040, 48 S. E. 406; Coopthe grantor, and that the justice of
er v. Jones, 24 Ga. 474. the peace who witnessed the instrument died afterward. It appeared
Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion that about March 9, 1911, H. J.
of the court: Collier went to the home of the hus
The decisive question in this case band of one of the plaintiffs, and
is whether the instrument quoted in while there delivered the deed to
the statement of facts shall be conMrs. Jennie Bell Carter, one of the
strued as a deed or as a will. Was plaintiffs, telling her, at the time
it intended to pass title to the propof delivery, to take the deed; that erty in præsenti, with the right of he did not know when he would possession postponed, or was it to die; and he said: "Here is the
be purely posthumous in its operadeed; this is yours; take it and
tion? take care of it, and at my death the Under, the previous rulings of property will be yours.
this court, as well as the great She retained possession of this weight of modern authority in other deed continuously to the time of the jurisdictions, we think it clear that trial. defendant, John W.
John W. the instrument is a deed, with the Collier, testified as follows: “I do right of possession postponed until not recognize that as H. J. Collier's the death of the grantor. The tensignature; it is not his signature, to dency of the earlier decision was to the best of my knowledge.”
construe instruments as testamenThis was the entire evidence for tary where the maker's intent apthe defendant.
peared in any way to vest title after Messrs. J. W. Haygood and Eldridge
his death, without regard to the Cutts, for plaintiff in error:
form of the instrument. Later a Where the evidence is not contra- more liberal rule was followed todicted as to the illness of counsel and ward giving to the instrument a his inability to attend, and as to his construction which would accord being the leading counsel, it is an abuse with the intention of the signer, and of discretion, or rather the court has which would uphold its validity. no discretion, but must grant a contin
Seals v. Pierce, 83 Ga. 787, 20 Am. uance. Bagwell v. State, 56 Ga. 406; Thomp
St. Rep. 344, 10 S. E. 589; Wynn son v. Hays, 119 Ga. 167, 45 S. E. 970;
v. Wynn, 112 Ga. 214, 37 S. E. 378; Waxelbaum Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line
West v. Wright, 115 Ga. 277, 41 S. R. Co. 3 Ga. App. 396, 59 S. E. 1129.
E. 602; Brice v. Sheffield, 118 Ga. Mr. J. Munroe Bussell also for 128, 44 S. E. 843; Griffith v. Dougplaintiff in error.
las, 120 Ga. 582, 48 S. E. 129; Isler Messrs. J. G. Cranford and E. K. v. Griffin, 134 Ga. 192, 67 S. E. Wilcox, for defendants in error:
854; Hughes v. Hughes, 135 Ga. 468, The instrument in question is a deed 69 S. E. 818; Pruett v. Cowsart, conveying title in præsenti, with the
136 Ga. 756, 72 S. E. 30; Mays v. right of possession postponed till after
Fletcher, 137 Ga. 27, 72 S. E. 408. the death of the grantor.
The instruments in no two of the West v. Wright, 115 Ga. 277, 41 S. E. 602; Isler v. Griffin, 134 Ga. 192, 67
cases just cited are identical, nor is S. E. 854; Brice v. Sheffield, 118 Ga.
the instrument in any one of them
identical with the instrument in the 128, 44 S. E. 843; Griffith v. Douglas, 120 Ga. 582, 48 S. E. 129.
present case. They are all suffiThe continuance of cases because of ciently similar to establish the printhe absence of counsel is not favored. ciple already enunciated as the rul