Collins vs. Dixon, guardian

Supreme Court of Georgia1884-04-08

72 Ga. 475

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Although the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the sheriff's levy and sale, that error was cured by refusing Collins's requested jury instruction and presumably charging the jury that the defective levy conveyed no title, making the judgment for Dixon correct notwithstanding the evidentiary mistake.

Collins brought an ejectment action to recover land in Tattnall County. The defendants (Dixon, as guardian for minor wards) presented a deed from Berrien Collins to Dixon dated in 1873. Collins countered with evidence of a judgment lien against Berrien Collins from 1870, a sheriff's levy and sale of 700 acres in 1873–1874, and a subsequent deed from the sheriff's purchaser to Collins covering the disputed 300-acre parcel. The trial court admitted this evidence despite Collins's objection that the levy was too uncertain to convey title. The jury ruled for Dixon, and the court denied Collins's motion for a new trial.

Collins raised two arguments on appeal: first, that Dixon lacked authority to purchase the land without court authorization, and second, that the sheriff's sale under the older judgment lien should take priority over Dixon's deed. The appellate court rejected the first argument as immaterial to Collins's rights and upheld the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on it. While the court acknowledged the second argument stated correct law, it found Collins could not benefit from it because the sheriff's levy itself was void for uncertainty and therefore passed no title to the subsequent owners in the chain.

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

Key issues

Whether a guardian's authority to invest ward funds in land requires prior court authorization
Whether a sheriff's levy void for uncertainty can convey title superior to a prior deed
Effect of admitting defective evidence when curative jury instructions are given

Procedural posture

Collins appealed after the trial court overruled his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of Dixon in an ejectment action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Blandrorjd, Justice.

This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of a certain tract of land in Tattnall county. The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, introduced and read in evidence to the jury a deed of conveyance from Berrien Oollins to Matthew Dixon, guardian for Ellen, Jincey and Wealthy Dixon, minors, dated 28th June, 1873, and recorded April, 1882, to the premises in dispute, proved possession in Berrien Collins when the deed was made, and closed. The defendant introduced a fi.fa., founded on a judgment rendered 22d March, 1870, in favor of one Meinhart vs. Berrien Collins, which fi.fa. contained an entry by the sheriff as follows: “I have this day levied the within y?, fa. upon 700 acres of land, more or less, as the property of defendant, December 4th, 1873,” and a deed from the sheriff, under this levy, to A. H. Smith, dated January 6th, 1874, recorded April 8th, 1875, to 700 acres of land in the 351st district G. M., of said county, which recited the sale of the land under the judgment,y?, fa;, and levy aforesaid, by the sheriff to Smith. To the introduction of this testimony, the plaintiff objected, upon the ground that the levy was void for uncertainty, and could not convey title. The court overruled this objection, and the plaintiff excepted, and files his cross-bill of exceptions.’ and assigns this ruling aserror. The defendant then introduced a deed from A. H. Smith to Bryant Collins to 300 acres of land, the same being the premises in dispute, dated 14th October, 1875, being part of the 700 acres so levied on and sold by the sheriff to A. H. Smith. The defendant closed. The jury found for the plaintiff the premises in dispute. The defendant made a motion for a new trial.

(1.) Because the court erred in refusing to charge, as requested by defendant, that Dixon had no right to purchase from Berrien Oollins the land in question, unless you find that an order had first been obtained from the superior court, authorizing such purchase.

(2.) Because the sale by the sheriff, under the Meinhart fi.ja.i conveyed a title superior to that conveyed by the deed from Berrien Collins to Dixon, guardian. No matter what was the age of the lien sought to be paid thereby, the older lien must pursue the fund.

The court overruled the motion for new trial, and error is assigned to this court upon exceptions to the ruling of the court.

1. The first request, to charge, assigned as error in the motion for new trial, is without foundation. Whether Matthew Dixon, as guardian, had the authority to invest the funds of his wards in the land or not, is a matter of no concern to the plaintiff in error, but was entirely between himself and his wards. The wards, after all becoming of age, made themselves parties to .the action which had been instituted by their guardian, and they thereby ratified the investment made by their guardian for them; but whether this were so or not, Bryant Collins, the plaintiff in error, could not in any manner interfere therewith, and the court did right to refuse this request, which would have been manifest error, if it had been given.

2. The second request is good law, but the plaintiff in error was not in a condition to avail himself of it. The levy by the sheriff, as evidenced by the return of the sheriff on the Meinhart fi. fa.-, was void for uncertainty, and the sale by the sheriff, and his conveyance to Smith of the land in question, j>assed no title; consequently, the conveyance by Smith to Bryant Collins did not pass the title to this land into the plaintiff in error. See Brown, w. Mougfon, decided at the last term of this court, in which this doctrine is fully treated, and all the cases collated and referred to.

However correct the charge is as requested, yet, if the same is not applicable under the facts of the case, it should not have been to the jury. , It is true, the court had let in tb.eji.fa., entry of the sheriff and deed to Smith in evidence to the jury, which was error, yet, having committed this error, he cured it, as far as he éould, by refusing defendant’s request to charge, and by charging, as we are to presume he did, what the law was ; that is, that this levy and sale to Smith under the Meinhart fi.fa. conveyed no title to this land to Smith, and consequently Smith could not convey title to Bryant Collins. So the judgment refusing the new trial was right, and must be affirmed.

The cross-bill of exceptions is dismissed, and upon the whole record, let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.