144 Ga. 1 | Ga. | 1915
Lead Opinion
The plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin the defendants from committing certain alleged trespasses on lot of land number 30 in land district 10 of Berrien county. The plaintiffs based their title upon a grant to Barnet Goslin, dated August 4, 1841, and a deed from his administrator de bonis non, dated November 4, 1908. The defendants in their answer admitted that they claimed from a common grantor, but averred that Barnet Goslin prior to his death had conveyed the lot in controversy to J. D. Shanks, from whom they derived their title.
Judgment affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
We concur in the judgment, but we do not think it necessary to decide whether parol authority is sufficieiit to authorize the filling in of blanks in a deed under seal, or to discuss the decision in the case of Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173 (58 Am. D. 549), or other cases in which it has been cited or bearing on the same subject. Objection was made to the admission of the deed in evidence, on the ground that various things appeared on the face of it. There is nothing to show that in fact these things did appear on the face of it; but, on the contrary, a photograph of the deed contained in the brief of evidence fails to show that the names of the grantees were inserted after the deed was signed by the maker.. Accordingly the objection was properly oveiTuled.
Again, a bill of exceptions pendente lite was filed. One of the exceptions taken was that the court refused a certain written request to charge the jury. This requested charge began with these words: “If you find from the evidence that the deed from O. T. Montford, as administrator of Barnett Bostin, to the plaintiffs was a forgery, or that material portions of the deed was a forgery,” etc. A portion of this request referred to the filling in of names of grantees in a-deed after it had been signed; but, under the repeated rulings of this court, unless a requested charge as a whole be correct, the refusal of it would constitute no ground for a reversal. From what has been said above it is patent that this request, in large part, was based on an erroneous theory, and that it contained matter which it would have been palpable error to have given in charge. It has not been the practice of this court to take such requests and seek for some part of them upon which to base a ruling, and we do not think that it should be done now.