Case Name: WALKER v. THE BANK OF QUITMAN
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1896-11-30
Citations: 100 Ga. 88
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALKER v. THE BANK OF QUITMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
WALKER v. THE BANK OF QUITMAN.
Submitted November 17,
Decided November 30, 1896.
Appeal. Before Judge Hansell. Brooks superior court. May 'term, 1896.
I. L. Walker, on October 2, 1894, to- secure the payment -of his promissory note for $200 due October 1, 1895, executed a conveyance of 245 acres of land in Brooks county, the words of the conveyance being: “I hereby bargain, sell and convey to the payees of this note, their heirs and assigns.” The instrument contains the following clause: "And in case of failure to- pay said indebtedness at the maturity 'thereof, the payees of this note, their -agent, attorney, heirs or assigns, are hereby irrevocably authorized and empowered to- seize and take possession of said property, and to sell ’the same for cash at public outcry in'front of the court-house door in said county, -after having advertised said property a.t said court-house for ten days by written or printed notice, and apply the proceeds -of said sale to the payment of said indebtedness, -and all costs of said sale, including ten per cent, additional for further attorney’s fees; and the balance, if any, to be subject to any order. And the payees of said note, -their agent, attorney, heii-s and assigns, are fully authorized to bid at said sale, and to make a fee simple title to- said property to- the- purchaser -or purchasers.”

Opinion:
Lumpkin, J.
This case is controlled by the decision of this court in Brice v. Lane, adm'r, et al., 90 Ga. 294. Judgment affirmed.
Walker remained in possession of the property up- to- the time of h'is death, October 31, 1895, an-d his wife has since been in possession. She applied for a year's support for hei'self and four minor children, and the appraisers made a return setting apart for this purpose the land so conveyed, in addition to a lot of personal property. Objections to the return were filed by the holder of the conveyance; which having been submitted to- the judge without a jury, he held that the instrument was a deed conveying the title, •and that the only estate- which the heirs of Wafer have in the land is -the equity of redemption after paying -the debt to secure- which t'he deed was given. To -this ruling Mrs. Walker excepted.
8. 8. 'Bemvet and M. Btmm, for plaintiff in error.
G. M. Hitch, contra.