148 Ga. 99 | Ga. | 1918
W. M. Williams filed his equitable petition in the superior court of Decatur county, against R. L. Z. Bridges, of Decatur county, W. I. Geer, of Miller county, and D. C. Barrow, of Mitchell county. The material allegations of the petition were: The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant Bridges at the May term, 1915, of the superior court of Decatur county, for $2500 principal, $462.50 interest to the date of the judgment, and future interest on the principal at the rate of eight per cent, per annum. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, and a motion for new trial filed by the defendant Bridges has-not been disposed of. Geer was and is still the attorney of record for the plaintiff. D. C. Barrow was employed by Bridges to negotiate a loan for Bridges, to be secured by a deed on certain real estate in Decatur county. Barrow, acting as agent for Bridges, undertook to procure a cancellation of the judgment which plaintiff had recovered against Bridges, stating to plaintiff that Geer had agreed to make a deduction in his fee in order to procure a settlement. Under' plaintiff’s agreement with Geer he was to have twenty per cent, of the recovery as a fee. Negotiations between the plaintiff and Bridges, Barrow, and Geer covered a period of four days, and were carried on in as many different towns. Geer refused to disclose to petitioner what fee he had agreed to accept in settlement of his interest in the judgment, and undertook to persuade petitioner to accept $1100 for his interest in the judgment. Plaintiff refused to accept $1100, but finally agreed to accept from Bridges $2000 net to him. Pending the negotiations Barrow called plaintiff aside and advised him not to be governed by the advice of his sons in the settlement of the judgment, but to accept the advice offered by Barrow. After the agreement to accept $2000 net, Geer presented to plaintiff a deed, which had already been prepared, and which plaintiff executed with the distinct understanding that he was to receive the full sum of $2000 net to him. Geer did not read the deed to plaintiff. Plaintiff is illiterate and can neither read nor write, which fact was well known to his attorney, Bridges, and Barrow. Immediately after the execution of the deed, Geer called plaintiff into the bank and offered him a check for $1150 in full settlement of his interest in the judgment and in full consideration of the deed to certain land conveyed by the plaintiff to Bridges. Bridges was present, and the plaintiff then refused to accept the check for $1150, and stated to Geer and Bridges that he had not agreed to accept $1150 in settle
1. The petition set forth a cause of action against each of the defendants. Substantial relief was prayed against the resident defendant, Bridges. Defendants Barrow and Geer were proper parties defendant; and the petition is not multifarious. The demurrer to the petition upon the grounds as just indicated was properly overruled.
2. Upon the trial of the case the evidence for the plaintiff showed that the deed made by him to Bridges was read to the plaintiff before he signed it, but tended to show that the clause reciting the consideration of the deed was omitted in the reading, that the consideration stated in the deed ($1500) was not read to the plaintiff before he executed the deed, but that at the time of the execution of the deed it was distinctly understood that he was to be paid $2000 net to him before the delivery of the deed. In all other respects the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff tended to establish the material allegations of the petition, and, though strongly rebutted, was sufficient to authorize the verdict in his favor against all the defendants.
3. The several charges of the court assigned as error were authorized by the pleadings and the evidence, and contained no intimation of opinion by the court upon the facts of the case. ' The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
