Wilson vs. Chandler et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1878-01

60 Ga. 129

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered because the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the entire property when they held only their proportionate shares as tenants in common with other non-party heirs.

Chandler, as guardian for her son and in her own right, brought an ejectment action against Wilson to recover land in Haralson County. Both parties traced their claims to Elijah M. Little: Chandler claimed through a deed to her deceased husband dated in 1863, while Wilson claimed through a sheriff's deed resulting from an 1873 execution sale based on an 1862 judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of Chandler and her son, instructing the jury that they were entitled to recover the entire disputed property despite being only two of six heirs.

On appeal, the court identified a critical error in the trial judge's instructions. The court held that Chandler and her son, as tenants in common with the other four heirs of Wyatt Chandler, could only recover their individual shares of the land, not the whole property. The presence of co-heirs who were not parties to the lawsuit meant the plaintiffs lacked standing to claim full title.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Rights of tenants in common in ejectment actions when some co-tenants are not parties to suit
Scope of recovery available to heirs who are only partial owners
Effect of homestead exemptions on judgment liens and execution sales

Procedural posture

The case came to the appellate court on assignment of errors from a jury verdict and trial court charge in an ejectment action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

Chandler, as guardian of her son, Eichardson, and for herself, brought ejectment against Wilson et al. for certain lots of land located in Haralson county. Both parties claimed under Elijah M. Little — the plaintiff, by virtue of a deed from Little to Wyatt Chandler, her deceased husband, dated April 27, 1863 ; the defendant, under a sheriff’s deed, made under a sale, on the first Tuesday in August, 1873, under an execution against Little, based upon a judgment rendered in April, 1862. The jury found for the plaintiffs the entire premises in dispute. The evidence disclosed that Wyatt Chandler died soon after purchasing from Little, leaving a widow and six children, all of whom are now living, and only one of which children is a party plaintiff to this suit.

Three errors are assigned:

(1.) Because the court charged that if more than four years had elapsed, after the levy and before the sale, that the land was discharged from the lien of the judgment, and the sale was illegal and void, and that defendants got no valid title under the sale.

(2.) Because the court further charged, that plaintiffs in this action, being tenants in common, or joint tenants, with five other persons, who are not parties to this suit, they were entitled to recover the entire lot of land from the defendants ; that joint tenants and tenants in common were entitled to the possession of every foot of the land as against strangers to their title, and that Mary A., for herself, and as guardian for her son, Richardson, was entitled to recover the whole of the land, notwithstanding there were five other joint tenants or tenants in common who were not parties to this suit.

(3.) Because the court refused to charge as follows: that if they believed, from the evidence, that the plaintiffs in this action did anything to induce the sheriff to disobey the order of plaintiff’s attorney to sell said land, and that the acts of the plaintiffs in this case did induce the sheriff to disobey the orders of plaintiff’s attorney, then plaintiffs in this action could not recover.

In connection with the 1st and 3rd grounds, the evidence disclosed that the execution was originally levied on the property on January 29 and 30, 1869. In reference to this levy the sheriff enters on fi. fa. as follows :

“ The above levy claimed under the homestead act, except 40 acres, belonging to Thos. J. Little, which was ordered not to be sold by plaintiff’s attorney.

* * * *

April 6, 1869. L. C. Dean, sheriff.”

Dean, the former sheriff, testified that he made the entry, and did not then sell, because, on sale day, he was shown the record of a homestead in the land having been set apart to plaintiffs ; that, for this reason, he refused to obey the order of the attorneys for plaintiff in fi. fa. to sell.

In view of the ruling of this court in Sanford vs. Sanford, (58 Ga. Rep., 259), the second charge of the court, excepted to was error. The plaintiffs, in whose name the demise was laid, were entitled to recover only their shares of the land sued for, the other children of WyattChandler not being parties to the suit. The evidence in the record, upon which the other two grounds of error are based, not being full and satisfactory, we express no opinion as to them, but reverse the judgment for error in the charge of the court that the two plaintiffs suing were entitled to recover the whole of the land sued for, on the statement of facts disclosed by the evidence in the record. Let the judgment of the court below be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed.