Hobbs et al. v. Houston et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1940-06-13No. No. 13350

190 Ga. 505

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment granting a nonsuit and dismissing the case was affirmed because the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence of debt payment and their exceptions to the auditor's report were procedurally deficient.

The plaintiffs brought suit claiming that a property conveyance, which appeared absolute on its face, was actually intended as a security deed, and that the underlying debt had been paid. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case through proper evidence. Specifically, hearsay statements from the deceased grantor regarding debt payments were inadmissible and could not support the plaintiffs' claim that the indebtedness had been satisfied.

The court applied settled principles regarding the burden of proof in security deed cases, noting that parties alleging payment must affirmatively demonstrate it through competent evidence. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs' exceptions to the auditor's report were deficient because they did not properly reference the underlying evidence or set forth the factual foundation needed for appellate review. As a result, the court upheld the trial court's grant of a nonsuit and dismissal.

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

Key issues

Whether hearsay statements of a deceased grantor regarding debt payments are admissible to prove payment of an underlying obligation
Whether plaintiffs met their burden to affirmatively establish debt payment in a security deed dispute
Whether exceptions to an auditor's report must reference supporting evidence and specify evidentiary foundations

Procedural posture

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment that granted a nonsuit and dismissed their case after an auditor's report was approved, overruling their exceptions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Grice, Justice.

1. If a plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie ease, or if, admitting all the facts proved and all reasonable deductions from them, the plaintiff ought not to recover, a nonsuit will be granted. Code, § 110-310.

2. The petition being based on the theory that a conveyance absolute on its face, wherein the plaintiffs’ intestate was grantor, and one of the defendants the grantee, was in reality a mere security deed, and that the indebtedness had been paid, so as to reinvest the legal title in the plaintiffs’ intestate, the burden was in all events on the plaintiffs to make it affirmatively appear that the indebtedness had been paid.

3. Declarations of the grantor, then in possession, but since deceased, tending to show payments by him to the grantee, are mere hearsay, and as such have no probative value. Eastlick v. Southern Ry. Co., 116 Ga. 48 (43 S. E. 499). See Rucker v. Rucker, 136 Ga. 830 (72 S. E. 241), and cit.

4. The rule that when a plaintiff is entitled to recover for detention of his land, the defendant is liable, not merely for what he realized in the way of rents or profits, but its actual fair rental value, has no application to a mortgagee or holder of a security deed, admitted into possession. In the latter case, he is held accountable only for the profits actually received, where ordinary diligence is exercised. Powell on Actions for Land, § 419; Page v. Blackshear, 78 Ga. 597 (3 S. E. 423) ; Cook v. Powell, 160 Ga. 831 (6), 832 (129 S. E. 546).

5. If a grantee sells and conveys property to a third person who takes without notice of an outstanding equity, the purchaser, as against the original grantor, his personal representative or his heirs at law, will acquire the legal title unaffected by such equity. Copelin v. Williams, 152 Ga. 692 (111 S. E. 186).

6. “The neglect of a party excepting to an auditor’s report on matters of fact, or on matters of law dependent for their decision upon the evidence, to set forth, in connection with each exception of law or of fact, the evidence necessary to be considered in passing thereon, or to point out the same by appropriate reference, or to attach as exhibits to his exceptions those portions of the evidence relied on to support the exceptions, is a sufficient reason, in an equity ease, for refusing to approve the exceptions of fact and for overruling the exceptions of law.” Smith v. Wilkinson, 143 Ga. 741 (2) (85 S. E. 875); First State Bank v. Avera, 123 Ga. 598 (51 S. E. 665) ; Armstrong v. American National Bank of Macon, 149 Ga. 165 (86 S. E. 1087). See Coosa Land Co. v. Edgerton Mfg. Co., 165 Ga. 808 (142 S. E. 149) ; Loyd v. Camp, 172 Ga. 510 (158 S. E. 40).

7. Applying the foregoing rulings to the instant record, no error appears in the judgment overruling the exceptions to the report of the auditor, and in approving his report granting a nonsuit and dismissing the case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

B. D. Smith, B. S. Boy, and W. 0. Smith, for plaintiffs.

Bord >& Houston, J. H. Tipton, Leonard Bcwlcas, and Walter H. Burt, for defendants.