DocketNumber: 29365.
Citation Numbers: 21 S.E.2d 548, 67 Ga. App. 891
Judges: GARDNER, J. (After stating the foregoing facts.)
Filed Date: 7/16/1942
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The only question for consideration in the trial court and this court is whether the plaintiff in error had a good and merchantable title to the land in question. The defendant in error contends that the question should be answered in the negative because: (1) The will did not give the executrix the authority to borrow money. (2) The judge of the superior court had no authority to authorize the loan on the property (3) The loan deed did not follow the order of the judge limiting the loan to $1500, as the loan consummated was for $1920, and the loan deed had other provisions in it which were not authorized by the order of the judge. (Those provisions are not here set out for the reason that, under my view of the case, they are immaterial.) (4) The power of sale in the loan deed was void, and therefore the plaintiff in error acquired no title by its purchase. (5) The executrix and her children had no authority to bind the unborn contingent remaindermen referred to in the will. (6) The widow's title to the land "derived through the year's support proceedings, under the decision in Grant v.Sosebee,
Conceding, but not deciding, that the order of the judge of the superior court authorizing the loan was unauthorized by the law, I think that the executrix, under the broad powers bestowed upon her in the will, had the authority, without any court order, and without any specific provision in the will, to mortgage the lot in question to obtain money for the purpose of paying the testator's just debts. When she made the loan deed she was the executrix of the estate, and legal title to all of the property was vested in her. "Furthermore, executors are trustees, and they are trustees having legal title to devised realty for the purpose of using the same, or the proceeds of the same, to pay debts and for distribution of the devised realty among the devisees thereof." Peck v. Watson,
The title of the plaintiff in error could not be attacked by either the executrix or her other children, because all three of them, together with Mrs. Foster, had participated in the application to the court to borrow the money, and are estopped from ever attacking an order which they requested the court to make. Mize v. Harber,
The loan deed to the land in question executed by Salvador Valdes during his life was superior to his widow's right of a year's support. Pinckney v. Weil,
In my opinion, the evidence, and the law applicable thereto, demanded a finding that the defendant had a good and merchantable title to the land in question, and that it could furnish such a title to the plaintiff, and that it was ready, able and willing to do so. It follows that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was contrary to law and the evidence; and that the court erred in denying a new trial.
Kerr v. White , 52 Ga. 362 ( 1874 )
Setze v. First National Bank , 140 Ga. 603 ( 1913 )
Whitfield v. Maddox , 189 Ga. 870 ( 1940 )
Mize v. Harber , 189 Ga. 737 ( 1940 )
Peck v. Watson , 165 Ga. 853 ( 1928 )
Grant v. Sosebee , 169 Ga. 658 ( 1929 )
Mathews v. Fort Valley Cotton Mills , 179 Ga. 580 ( 1934 )
Richey v. First National Bank , 180 Ga. 751 ( 1935 )
Pinckney v. Weil , 183 Ga. 567 ( 1936 )
Mitchell v. Miller , 183 Ga. 703 ( 1937 )