Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ga. 53

Clements v. Wheeler

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1878-08-15

<p>1. The grant from the state to the premises in dispute having issued to Christopher Day, and there being in evidence a deed from his administrator, and also a deed of prior date from Christopher P. Day, it was not error to charge the jury that if the two names designated one and the same person, the grant would apply to that person. Although there was no direct evidence on the question of identity, the jury had before them one-or more relevant circumstances on which to pass, and it was their province to determine their effect.</p> <p>2. In making out adverse possession in one having color of title, and under whom the defendant claims as a purchaser, it may be shown that an occupant of the premises declared, while in possession, that he held under a certain person who said he was the agent of the person whose statutory title the defendant seeks to establish. Such evidence is admissible, not for tlie purpose of proving the asserted agency, but for the purpose of showing on whose supposed right and permission the occupant rested his possession, his declarations amounting to a virtual acknowledgement that the person named as principal was his real landlord.</p> <p>3. Partly on account of the newly discovered evidence, and partly on account of the want of fullness and certainty in the evidence as contained in the record, a new trial ought to be granted.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“There was no direct evidence that Christopher and Christopher P. were the same person, but both were of Chatham County, and perhaps there were other relevant circumstances tending to establish their identity. It was the province of the jury to determine the effect of all.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 107 Ga. App. 34 - Weathers v. Modern Masonry Materials, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1964

7 state decisions

301878188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bleckley, Justice.

¶11. The land was granted by the state to Christopher Day, of Chatham county ; and the administrator of Christopher Day sold and conveyed it in 1872. This was the source of the plaintiffs’ title. The defendant’s paper title commenced with a deed of bargain and sale from Christopher P. Day, of Savannah, (which is in Chatham county), made in 183.9. It is plain that if Christopher and Christopher P. were one and the same person, the defendant’s title was better than the plaintiffs’; for if the grantee from the state conveyed in 1839, his administrator had nothing to convey in 1872. It is true, the grant issued in July, and the deed from Christopher P. is dated in the previous May, but this would seem to make no difference, the said deed having been recorded in 1840, and the sale by the administrator not having been made until 1872. 25 Ga., 648; 29 Ib., 17, 440; 24 Ib., 150, 489. Each of the deeds was founded on a valuable consideration, and acknowledged the receipt of the purchase money. There was no direct evidence that Christopher and *58Christopher P. were the same person, but. both were of Chatham county, and perhaps there were other relevant circumstances tending to establish their identity. It was the province of the jury to determine the effect of all. 11 Ga., 620; 15 Id., 276, 277. There was no error in the charge.

¶22. While in possession, Harris said he held under Edwards, who was agent for Minis. This was equivalent to a declaration by Harris that he held under Minis. It did not prove that Edwards was the agent of Minis; it only proved that Harris rested his supposed right to possession on the supposed right of Minis, having derived the possession through Edwards, and, as he supposed, from Minis, Edwards having represented himself to Harris as the agent of Minis. It will be seen that the materiality of this scheme is nothing, except to hold Harris up to Edwards, and Edwards up to Minis. Afterwards, Edwards had possession in person under Minis.

¶33. In granting a new trial, two or more grounds may be considered together. Partly on account of the newly discovered evidence, and partly on account of the want of fulness and certainty in the evidence as contained in the record, a new trial ought to be granted.

¶4Judgment reversed.

/62/ga/53 · .json · Public domain