34 S.E.2d 168 | Ga. | 1945
1. Where the grantor of a deed given upon the consideration that the two grantees should take care of him during his life, sought to cancel the deed on the ground that one of the grantees had not carried out his agreement, and such grantee filed an answer in the nature of a cross-petition *274 seeking, in the event that the deed should be canceled, a money judgment for services rendered the grantor, the court's omission, in the absence of an appropriate request, to instruct the jury on a contention not made by the pleading, though supported by some evidence, was not cause for a new trial.
2. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the verdict.
The defendant filed an answer in the nature of a cross-petition, admitting designated allegations of the petition but averring that he had performed his part of the contract as far as he was permitted, has carried out every request made by the petitioner, and stands ready to perform any and all agreements made with the *275 petitioner. The only request he has failed to comply with is to reconvey the property. That for three years before the execution of the deed he had been waiting on, helping, and aiding the petitioner in various ways, and the deed was voluntarily executed as payment for such services. That he is a carpenter, and since the execution of the deed he used his own lumber and without pay helped build on the land a residence which the petitioner is renting for $12 a month. He also repaired without pay the residence in which the petitioner lives, and, with the consent of the petitioner, erected at a cost of $200 another residence in which the defendant lives. With the exception of the house last mentioned, the petitioner is in possession of the property. In the circumstances, to cancel the deed would be a fraud on the defendant. It was agreed by all the parties that the other grantee, Miss China Camp, would do the cooking, nursing, washing, and waiting on the petitioner, while the defendant was to help the petitioner with the management of his affairs, and do such other work as he had been doing for the petitioner, all of which the defendant alleged he had done and would continue to do whenever requested by the petitioner. That the petitioner had no right to have the deed canceled, but, if the same should be done, then the petitioner should be required to pay him for his work and the cost of erecting the residence in which the defendant lives, all of which is of the value of $700, and the defendant prayed that he have judgment for such amount.
On the trial, the evidence showed that the grantees in the deed, Miss China Camp and John Parker, were respectively a niece and a brother-in-law of the grantor. The evidence was conflicting on the question whether Parker had carried out his part of the agreement. Witnesses for the plaintiff testified that he failed to do so, and that the house erected by him in which he lived was not worth more than $40 to $50, while he testified in effect: That he had performed all duties required of him; that the house he built was worth $300 to $400, and that his services in waiting on the petitioner were worth $500. Referring to the house which the defendant erected, the plaintiff testified: "The house is worth $7 or $8 for rent, the way times are now. . . The house [the defendant] built . . was two rooms, 12 by 12, and then about two years later he built a little side room about eight or ten by *276 twelve, at the end of the house. . . When he built the house, he asked me to let him rent it, that he could get $8 a month for it."
The jury returned a verdict canceling the deed, and further found $500 in favor of the defendant. The exception is to a judgment overruling the petitioner's motion for a new trial.
1. The only special ground of the motion for new trial complains because the judge in his instructions to the jury, after fully setting out the claim of the defendant for the cost of improvements, failed to call attention to the question of rents claimed by the petitioner on the house built by the defendant. The criticism is that the failure to instruct the jury as to their right to allow rents against the improvements, and their duty to do so, in the event they found rents owing by the defendant, was error because it had the effect of not submitting that question to the jury, and because the undisputed evidence showed some amount of rents was owing by the defendant. While the petitioner testified that the house in which the defendant lived would rent for about $8 a month, he did not testify that the defendant had agreed to pay any rent, or that the defendant was liable for any rent. The prayer was for cancellation of the deed, recovery of the property, and for process. "Where in a civil case the judge, in stating the contentions of the parties, fully and fairly submitted the issues raised by the pleadings in the case, the failure of the court, in the absence of a request, to instruct the jury upon a contention of one of the parties not raised by the pleadings, though supported by some evidence in the record, is not cause for a new trial. Martin v. Nichols,
2. Though conflicting, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, which further found $500 in favor of the defendant on account of services rendered an improvements made on the property, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.