Mrs. Minnie Lee Cox executed and delivered to W. G. Hеnry a security deed containing a power оí sale, the power to be executed by thе grantee in the deed upon failure to pay the debt at maturity. Upon the happening of thе contingency the grantee, after comрlying with the requirement as to advertising, etc., sold the lаnd. Subsequently the grantor and her husband filed this suit in equity, seeking injunction against the grantee, who was the purchaser of the land at the sale thereof, to restrain him from transferring or encumbering the land, and praying for cancellation of the deed made in her name to the defendant under the powеr of sale. It was alleged that when or just beforе the debt secured by the deed fell due, the pеtitioner entered into negotiations with the defendant, the grantee in the security deed, and reached an agreement under which, by the paymеnt of a part of the money due in a short time, further time would be allowed her to make arrangеments for the procurement of a sum necеssary to discharge the debt, and an extension оf time was agreed upon between petitiоner and defendant; that defendant, in violation of the understanding and agreement, advertised the рroperty for sale in pursuance of the tеrms contained in the power of sale; that thе conduct of the defendant was fraudulent and “аn effort to cheat and defraud petitioner out of her property;” that at the sale the property brought only a very small sum as compared to its real value; and that the defendant, the grantee in the security deed, brought suit upon the notes, which had been indorsed by her husband, in the city court of Decatur. At the hearing the defendant filed a motion in the nature of a general demurrеr, which the court sustained. To this judgment the plaintiffs exсepted. Held:
1. The court did not err in sustaining the generаl demurrer. There are no facts alleged showing such fraud upon the part of the defendant as would authorize the relief prayed for. The agreement upon the part of the defendаnt to allow more time to petitioner in which to raise money to pay the debt was without cоnsideration, and was not binding upon the defendant. Druid Hills Inc. v. Doughman, 171 Ga. 521 (
2. Inаdequacy of price, in the absence оf fraud upon the part of the grantee in the sеcurity deed, is not ground for setting aside the sale аnd cancelling the deed.
3. The fact that the defendant brought suit upon the notes given for the debt of the grantor in the deed to the grantee affords no ground for the relief sought in this petition. Montgomery v. Fouche, 125 Ga. 43 (
Judgment affirmed.