TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hill v. Jones

Hill v. Jones, 66 S.E. 1099 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 10, 1910
Docket
No. 2126
Judges
Hill
Citations
66 S.E. 10997 Ga. App. 3941910 Ga. App. LEXIS 313
Summary
Complaint; from city court of Franklin — Judge Freeman presiding. July 28, 1909.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hill

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hill, C. J.

1. The Civil Code, §2693, par. 4, requires that “any contract ■ for sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning them,” to make the obligation binding, shall be “in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some person by him lawfully authorized.”

2. A receipt alleged to have been given for- part of the purchase-price of land, which reads as follows: “Received of A. five dollars, to confirm trade for 161 acres of land purchased from B., known as Judge Hayes place,” signed by B., is not such a note or memorandum of the contract of sale as will take the ease without the statute of frauds, as to A. Smith v. Jones, 66 Ga. 338 (42 Am. R. 72) ; Turner v. Lorillard, 100 Ga. 645 ( 28 S. E. 383 , 62 Am. St. R. 345 ) ; Corbin v. Durden, 126 Ga. 429 ( 55 S. E. 30 ).

3. It is only where partial payment is accompanied with possession by the vendee that a contract for the sale of land, not in writing, will amount to such part performance as will take the contract out of the statute. Civil Code, § 4037.

4. The contract for the sale of the land not being in writing or enforceable as falling within any of the exceptions to the statute of frauds, the trial court did not err in excluding all the evidence offered to show the unaccepted tender of a deed to the land and demand for the purchase-money, and in awarding a nonsuit. Graham v. Theis, 47 Ga. 479 ; Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819 ( 16 S. E. 89 ). Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11923: 11938: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Neely v. Sheppard196 S.E. 452 (Ga. 1938)
  2. Killarney Realty Co. v. Wimpey118 S.E. 581 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. Clemons v. Estes101 S.E. 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Neely v. Sheppard196 S.E. 452 (Ga. 1938)
  2. Killarney Realty Co. v. Wimpey118 S.E. 581 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. Clemons v. Estes101 S.E. 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Turner v. Lorillard Co., 28 S.E. 383 (Ga. 1897) 28
Corbin v. Durden, 55 S.E. 30 (Ga. 1906) 23
Roughton v. Rawlings, 16 S.E. 89 (Ga. 1892) 16
Graham v. Theis, 47 Ga. 479 (1873) 23
Smith v. Jones, 66 Ga. 338 (1881) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list