Case ID: ga_152/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gilbert, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith et al. v. White, guardian.
    No. 2451.
    October 14, 1921.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Lovett. Atkinson superior court. December 31, 1920.
    Mrs. Emma Smith filed a petition praying that a deed which she had made, conveying described land to Bob Smith et al., be set aside and canceled. The petitioner (grantor named in the deed) was the widow of W. E. Smith. The grantees named are children of W. E. Smith by a former wife. The petition alleged that the property involved was, with other property, set aside to petitioner and her two minor children as a year’s support; • that the deed conveying the land to the defendants was void and should be set aside, for the reasons (a) that she received no consideration for the same; (5) that it was obtained by duress, in that the defendants threatened to take all the property which had been set aside to her as year’s support, and that they would burn her out and would kill her if .she did not make the deed to them; (c) that the deed was obtained through fraud, in that the defendants represented to petitioner that she could not get possession of any of the property assigned as year’s support unless she would make to them a deed to the land involved, and that because of her ignorance, inexperience and fear caused by the threats made she was induced to execute the deed; that while the deed purports to be a deed of gift she had no reason for giving the grantees anything; that she did not know the purport and meaning of the deed, and the same was not her voluntary act. The two minor children of Mrs. Emma Smith, through their next friend, intervened, setting up the fact that the original plaintiff had died; that they were her sole heirs; that at the time of the execution of the deed their mother was, because of the impairment of her mental ’faculties, incapacitated to make an intelligent and voluntary disposition of her property; and praying that they be made parties plaintiff, and that the cause proceed in their name and for their benefit. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial filed, and subsequently amended, was overruled by the court, and the defendants excepted. The sole ground of the amendment to the motion complains- that the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to introduce documentary evidence to show that the land had been set aside as a year’s support. The objections urged against this evidence at the time of its introduction were, (1) that the land in question Avas not shown to have been in the possession of W. E. Smith at the time of his death; and (2) because the proceedings setting aside year’s support described the land as “ one hundred and fifty acres of lot of land No. 63 in the 7th district of Coffee County,” while the deed, cancellation of which was sought, describes the land as “ being parts of lots No. 63 and 39 in the 7th district of Coffee County.”
   Gilbert, J.

1. The court did not err in admitting the record setting aside year’s support, for the reasons:

(а) There was some evidence that William E. Smith, from whose estate the year’s support was set aside and who was the husband of Emma Smith, the original plaintiff, died in possession of the land in question. Moreover, the sole issue was the question of cancellation of the deed; and therefore the introduction of the evidence showing that the land was set aside as year’s support was not injurious to the objectors, who were grantees in the deed.

(б) Under the facts of the case the jury were authorized to find that the deed, cancellation of which was sought, purported to convey land set aside in the year’s support.

2. With the exception of the assignment of error mentioned in the preceding headnote, there is no complaint of any rulings of the court during the progress of the trial. The verdict is supported by evidence. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., absent on account of sickness.

S. Burhhalter and B. A. Moore, for plaintiffs in error.

Levi O’Steen, contra.