Branch v. Branch

Feb 11, 1913
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Hill
Hill, J.

1. Where a grantor conveyed property in fee simple to A, with parol direction that after the death of the grantor A should ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‍divide the property between the grantor’s heirs, and in carrying out the parol agreement A conveyed to B, as one of the heirs, property in excess of his distributive share, at the time orally stipulating that B should later pay him in money, for the benefit ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‍of another heir, C, a part of such excess to cover the amount still due her on account of her distributive share, A could maintain an action in his name for the use of C, against B, to recover such amount.

2. Where testimony is offered the ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‍great bulk of which is admissible, the fact that some small portion thereof may be inadmissible furnishes no good reason for sustaining an objection to the testimony in its entirety.

*376February 11, 1913. Complaint. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. October 26, 1911. B. E. Dinsmore, J. T. Hill, and J. W. Dennard, for ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‍plaintiff-in error. Bidgdill & Eve, contra.

3. Under the pleadings and the facts of this case, there was no error in any of the rulings allowing evidence to be admitted, which are the subject-matter of exception.

4. There was no error in refusing the written requests to charge, nor in giving the ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‍jury the instructions which are assigned as error.

5. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.