Court Opinion

ID: 9845969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:32:01.26288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.284381
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
In Walker v. Neil, 117 Ga. 733 (45 SE 387) (1903), the plaintiffs father purchased a lot and house and assumed two mortgages; he gave the property to the plaintiff before his death but did not give her a deed; his executor paid the two mortgages and had them assigned to himself as executor; the executor sold the property to Mrs. Walker. The plaintiff sued the executor and the purchaser to obtain a deed to the property, to clear the title and to cancel the executor’s deed. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and this court affirmed, holding that "Where money due on a mortgage is paid by one whose duty it is, by contract or otherwise, to pay the mortgage, it is a release, though in form it purports to be an assignment.”
"A security deed, although conveying the legal title, does so for the purpose of security only, and, upon the satisfaction of the obligation which it is given to secure, is automatically extinguished in effect and can be cancelled of record...” Sapp v. ABC Credit &c. Co., 243 Ga. 151, 154 (253 SE2d 82) (1979).
"A petition, seeking cancellation of a security deed
*685and injunction against a sale under power contained therein, alleging that the indebtedness has been paid in full, and that the petitioner is the holder of a junior security deed, is, as against general demurrer, sufficient to set forth a cause of action for the relief prayed for.” Davis v. Horner Lumber Co., 211 Ga. 144 (1) (84 SE2d 59) (1954).
The majority say that plaintiffs have no cause of action against Randall. In my view, the foregoing cases hold to the contrary.