Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Ga. 151

Kent v. Davis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 31, 1892

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1892-03-31

<p>An equitable petition alleging that the plaintiffs therein are the only heii's-at-law of their deceased father, who died intestate; that his estate owes no debts; that there has been no administration thereon; that they are all of lawful age; that one of the defendants who was a brother of the deceased, in the lifetime of the latter, by fraud and undue influence, and by making false and fraudulent promises to support the deceased, which were not kept, all of which are sufficiently set forth in the petition, induced the deceased, at a time when he was mentally and physically incapable of transacting business, to convey to such brother the whole or file greater part of his property, consisting of real estate and personalty; that such brother conveyed the realty to another defendant who had notice of the fraud; and praying a cancellation of these conveyances and an accounting by the brother for the personalty received by him, may be maintained; the court having the power, if in its discretion deemed necessary, to require plaintiffs, in the event they should recover for the personalty, to give bond indemnifying the brother from any loss to which he maybe subjected in consequence of any recovery against him by an administrator of the deceased hereafter appointed, if any, at the instance of a creditor or creditors.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-03-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1942

11 state decisions

50189219001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1 *151 Judgment affirmed.

The defendants demurred on the following grounds : The allegations in the declaration do not entitle plaintiffs to the relief sought or any other relief; the title to the personalty mentioned is not in plaintiffs, the right to sue being only in the administrator of Bryant Kent; and defendant Downs has a good title by prescription to the land of which he is alleged to be in possession. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants excepted. W. R. Daley, Evans & Evans, T. H. Potter, and Hines, Shubricic & Eelber, for plaintiffs in error. A. E. Daley, by brief, contra.
/89/ga/151 · .json · Public domain