Farlow v. Brown
68 S.E.2d 903
Ga.
1952
Check Treatment

*1 County Richmond, 72 Ga. 188. But when'the board of education, through beyond scope its its acts members, jurisdiction lawful wrong, act commits an actionable “county so action,” committed is not and in suit such a case a wrong- be maintained the courts of this State doers. follows from what been in the several has said divisions opinion judgment sustaining demurrer

to the petition, amended, is erroneous. All reversed. the Justices concur.

FARLOW v. BROWN.

No. 17629. Submitted October *2 plaintiff. III,

A. Felton C. Smith, John A. for defendant. Dan S. Beeland and (After stating foregoing Presiding Justice. Atkinson, facts.) being complaint in the motion for new trial There no directing exceptions the trial erred or bill of that 648 pleadings because and evidence there were

verdict' jury, that been submitted to the issues-of fact should have upon, jury had returned principle case same stands upon Hicks, verdict Webb v. the evidence. (5) (43 Stults, 117 Ga. E. Dickenson v. 120 Ga. 738); S. Hightower, 173); Hightower v. 159 Ga. (127 (9) 103); Miller, E. Gilliard Johnston & S. v. (129 Tyson Anderson, 434); v. S. 410); Shippen Johnson, v. Hardwood Lumber Co. Ga. 112 (1) 115); Bank, Braswell Federal Land Ford, Ford v. E. 2d, 865); Conley Brophy, 207 2d, 122). prior passage (Ga.

While to the of the act of 1950 L. p. 174), repealing 53-504, Code a sale woman to married being husband without allowed court of only voidable, but her domicile was not (Hood void v. Perry, Fulgham Pate, *3 (2) ; Stonecipher Kear, (2), 215; 63 S. Buchannon v. James, 392, 543; Green, 69 S. E. Echols v. (3), yet, prescription E. 557), a arise under such in parties deed favor of husband, the not the are living together. Brannon, Goss v. 167 Ga. 498 E.S. 187); Stallings 517). Britt, 250, 2d,

“In passing on general grounds the of a motion trial, for new passes weight not on the but on the of the sufficiency .this duty It evidence. is our to determine the verdict as whether rendered any can' be sustained under reasonable taken of view proofs the jury.” Ingram submitted the. to State, 164, 891). 2d, present

The (her deed petitioner from the to O. O. Brown husband) petitioner May 2, was executed on left 1938. The in him the house in October, 1938. He continued possession in November, posses- until 1943, tenant'stayed after which his in May until during Thus, period of more than sion years petitioner after property, seven the abandoned O. the O. possession. having íirówn and his were in O. tenant O. Brown October, in possession, died his tenant, and that of his legal Brown, representatives inured-to' the benefit the O. 0. none, Compare Code, 85-407; and if heirs. Knorr v. to his Steffes, 73 Ga. 749 Walker v. Raymond, 461). Neisler, Turner v. 141 Ga. 27 petitioner, having in received her final decree of The divorce December, not Brown, was an heir at law of O. O. and legal representative. she not claim does to be his The children parties of O. O. not for case, are and that reason to Brown by any ruling are not affected here made. finding

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a that, legal representatives the petitioner, of 0. 0. Brown, none, heirs, and if acquired his had prescriptive title by years’ possession seven adverse from the the deed petitioner or, 0. 0. Brown in words, outstanding to other paramount person title petitioner. in other was than the judge follows that trial did err overruling petition- not in er’s for solely motion new trial based on the usual grounds.

In it unnecessary pass upon this view becomes to question deed reciting of whether or wife’s her not a a consideration to attached, husband refer to or must have domicile, court of the of her to be order a valid deed. Ü. Duckworth, All the Justices concur. affirmed. J., Hawkins, J.,. specially. and concur concurring Justice, Justice, Chief

Duckworth, Hawkins, specially. specially judgment We concur in the of affirmance reason that the or any evidence fails restoration to show plaintiff offer restore to of the consideration received conveyance for the which she seeks to set aside. Hendrix v. Bank Portal, 879). *4 CALDWELL,

CARNES, now CARNES. Argued 16, 1952 No. 17653. November (cid:127) -29,