176 Ga. 72 | Ga. | 1932
Mrs. Barbara C. Dye, and Maidee Dye by her next friend, filed complaint in two counts, alleging in the first count that Mrs. Barbara C. Dye entered into a contract with her son, H. M. Dye, on June 30, 1910, by the terms of which H. M. Dye agreed to furnish Mrs. Barbara C. Dye, and her daughters Amilee Dye and Maidee Dye, a support and maintenance for and during their, natural lives or until the marriage of the daughters or either of them; that in accordance with the contract Mrs. Barbara 0. Dye executed and delivered to H. M. Dye, on June 30, 1910, a warranty deed conveying certain lands; that on April 12, 1926, the administrator of the estate of EL M. Dye, who had died, executed to Mrs. EL M. Dye an administrator’s deed conveying the same lands, subject to the contract of June 30, 1910; that Mrs. El. M. Dye went into possession and held the lands under the administrator’s deed by reason of having purchased the land from the administrator of the estate of H. M. Dye, and, having purchased it subject to the contract of June 30, 1910, she was bound to support Mrs. Barbara C. Dye and Maidee Dye, the daughter who had not married; that Mrs. EL M. Dye had failed to furnish said support and maintenance since January 8, 1931; that the reasonable value of this maintenance and support was $25 per month for each of the plaintiffs and they had been injured and damaged in that sum; and that the obligation to furnish such support and maintenance was a direct charge upon the lands conveyed by the administrator’s deed. The plaintiffs prayed for a judgment for the sum that might be accrued on the trial of the case, and that it be decreed that Mrs. EE. M. Dye be required to pay to each of the plaintiffs $25 a month thereafter so long as they live, and, in default of such payment, that the land be sold. The second count alleged substantially the facts as above stated, and in addition alleged that the defendant’s conduct had caused the plaintiffs irreparable loss and damage, and that the de
When the case was called for trial the attorney for the plaintiffs announced that he would abandon the second count and parts of the petition asking for other relief. It is insisted by the plaintiffs that the contract attached to the petition is a covenant which runs with the land. The defendant insists that it could be no more than a consideration promised for the purchase-price of the land, and that defendant’s husband, H. M. Dye, is the person who failed to furnish the consideration for the land conveyed to him by a warranty deed from Mrs. Barbara C. Dye in 1910; that H. M. Dye made this contract and purchased the land for the consideration of supporting Mrs. Barbara C. Dye and her two daughters during their natural lives or until either of the daughters should marry. This contract and conveyance of the land took place in 1910, and the contract was made by and between Mrs. Barbara C. Dye and H. M. Dye, and these two were the only parties to the contract. In 1918 Mrs. Barbara C. Dye made a conveyance of the land to H. M. Dye for a valuable consideration, it is asserted by the defendant, thereby convejúng to H. M. Dye what interest Mrs. Barbara C. Dye might have in and to the lands. After this conveyance was made, H. M. Dye died, and the administrator of his estate sold the land ■to Mrs. H. M. Dye.
The instrument executed by H. M. Dye, called therein party of the first part, and by Mrs. Barbara C. Dye, called' therein party of the second part, contains the following agreements and stipulations : "That whereas the said party of the second part is a widow and is now and has been for the .past years since the death of her husband lived with the said party of the first part, who has supported her together with her two daughters, Amilee Dye and Maidee Dye, the sisters of the party of the first part; and whereas the party of the second part is becoming of advanced age and desiring to provide for the future support of herself and her said two daughters, and. prefers to continue and reside with the said party of the first part; and whereas party of the second part has certain propertjf, same being real estate situated and located in'the County of Troup, said State,-with which to provide for the future care and
We do not think it is necessary to decide whether the agreements and covenants in this contract are covenants running with the land. If they are covenants running with the land, then the purchaser of the land from H. M. Dye, to whom Mrs. Barbara C. Dye had conveyed the land in question, would be’bound to fulfill the duty imposed by those covenants upon H. M. Dj>-e, without regard to any contract which the purchaser from H. M. Dye might have made with him. But under the facts of this case, whether these were covenants running with the land or not, Mrs. PL M. Dye,'widow of H. M. Dye, is bound by the terms of the contract and the stipulations in this instrument containing the contract and covenants which we have set forth above, because in the deed from the administrator it is stipulated that the lands conveyed by the deed of