LAW.coLAW.co

PHILLIPS v. HIGHTOWER et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1936-04-15No. No. 11167
182 Ga. 324

Summary

Holding. The judgment dismissing the petition was reversed. Phillips was entitled to have his equitable claims heard, and the demurrer should not have been sustained because the petition contained sufficient allegations to show he held title to the land and was therefore entitled to an interlocutory injunction against the dispossessory proceeding.

John Phillips brought suit seeking to stop the enforcement of a dispossessory warrant issued by Minnie Hightower, who claimed he was a tenant holding over on her property. Phillips alleged that he inherited the land from his wife approximately thirty-five years before and later signed a document while illiterate and deaf, believing it merely concerned tax and rent matters related to Hightower's temporary use of the property. He contended that if the document constituted a deed, it was obtained through fraud, and that he never intended to transfer ownership or become a tenant.

The trial court dismissed Phillips's petition by sustaining a demurrer filed by the defendants. Phillips appealed, arguing he was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to prevent the eviction. The court found that when a defendant in a dispossessory proceeding raises equitable claims and alleges sufficient facts showing ownership by prescription or other legal right, dismissing the petition on demurrer constitutes error. Because the demurrer admits all factual allegations as true, Phillips's possession must be treated as ownership rather than tenancy.

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

Key issues

  • Whether a petition alleging fraud in obtaining a deed should be dismissed on demurrer in a dispossessory warrant action
  • Whether possession claimed as owner rather than tenant can be treated as such when raised in response to a dispossessory warrant
  • Whether an illiterate, deaf person can be bound by a document signed without understanding its contents

Procedural posture

Phillips appealed after the trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer and dismissed his petition for equitable relief against a dispossessory warrant.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Beck, Presiding Justice.

John Phillips brought a petition in which he made the following allegations: Minnie Hightower sued out a dispossessory warrant to evict petitioner from certain described lands; and the bailiff, Carl Lanier, without giving petitioner three days notice as required by law, proceeded to throw petitioner’s goods out of the house, stating that Minnie Hightower claimed ownership of the lands, and that petitioner was her tenant Jiolding over. About thirty-five years before the bringing of this suit the plaintiff married Emma Jordan, who was then the owner of the lands in question. They lived upon the lands until his wife died in 1923. No children were horn to them; there was no administration of his wife’s estate; and petitioner took possession of the lands as sole heir at law of his wife. After her death, H. E. Hightower, now deceased, the former husband of Minnie High-tower, claimed that petitioner’s wife was indebted to his wife in a considerable amount. Petitioner made payments on this alleged indebtedness for two or three years, when the Hightowers asked him to let them rent the lands and work out the debt by applying the rents to that account; and petitioner consented to this about the year 1926. Eor several years thereafter it was worked by various people placed thereon by the Hightowers, who paid to Minnie Hightower rents to the alleged amount of $1000. During the time Minnie Hightower was working this place and having it worked, her husband said to plaintiff that he and his wife were having to pay the taxes on it, and told plaintiff he ought to give them some kind of showing about the taxes; to which suggestion plaintiff consented, and they met in a bank, where a named person was drawing up a paper, and Hightower said, “That is the paper that I wanted you to give me, showing about the taxes and the rent, so that we would be protected,” and told petitioner to sign it, which petitioner did. He is ignorant, can neither read nor write, and is quite deaf; and he signed by merely making his mark, and walked out, believing that he was giving some kind of showing to Minnie Hightower about how she was to work the land and pay the taxes. She kept the lands for seven years, and then turned the place back to petitioner, and he went back on the lands and farmed them in 1933 and 1934. [Recently petitioner has been informed that Minnie Hightower claims to have a deed from him to the lands, and that petitioner is her tenant, and that she swore out the dispossessory warrant above referred to. Plaintiff, says he is not the tenant of Minnie Hightower; that he has never parted with ownership of the lands; that if the paper he signed was a deed of conveyance to Minnie Hightower, it was fraudulently obtained from him in the manner above described. He prays that Minnie Hightower and the bailiff be restrained from executing the warrant and from evicting him, and that they be permanently enjoined.

The defendants filed a demurrer which the court sustained. The petition was dismissed, and Phillips excepted.

Under the facts alleged in the petition, the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction. In Smith v. Wynn, 111 Ga. 884 (36 S. E. 970), it was held: “When a person against whom a dispossessory warrant has been sued out, on the ground that he is a tenant holding over, files a petition setting forth grounds for equitable interference with the execution of such warrant, and containing allegations sufficient of themselves to show that the plaintiff has title to the land by prescription, it is error to dismiss the petition on demurrer thereto. Since the demurrer admits the truth of those allegations, the possession of the plaintiff must, in dealing with the demurrer, be treated as a possession held by him as owner and not as tenant.”

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.