155 Ga. 570 | Ga. | 1923
An attorney at law, , on his direct examination, testified in a claim case in behalf of the claimant and against the administrator of the vendee, who was the opposite party, that he was employed by an agent of the vendee to prepare and have executed a deed to lands from the claimant to the vendee, and that, after the deed was executed, by agreement between the vendor and the vendee the deed was placed with him in escrow to be delivered to the vendee upon the performance by her agent of certain terms and conditions, that the agent of the vendee had not fully complied with these terms and conditions, and that the agent obtained from him the deed for the purpose of exhibiting it to the vendee to satisfy the latter of its existence and of the good faith of the agent in this transaction, upon the promise of the agent to return the instrument to. the attorney as soon as this purpose was accomplished, which promise the agent did not keep, but violated the same by delivering the instrument to the vendee. On his cross-examination this witness testified that the claimant gave him the deed, and told him to keep it for her until the contract was complied with, and that he was acting for her. The administrator of the vendee objected to this testimony of the attorney, as to the agreement under which the deed was placed with him and as to the failure of the agent to comply with its terms, on the ground that, being the agent or attorney at law of the claimant in the transaction by which the deed was placed with him in escrow, he was incompetent to testify to the above facts in favor of the claimant, who was the surviving party, against the vendee, whose administrator was the opposite party in the case, both the vendee and her agent, with the latter of whom the alleged agreement was made, being dead at the time of the
The solution of this question depends upon the proper construction of paragraph 5 of section 5858 of the Civil Code. This paragraph declares that “No agent or attorney at law of the surviving or sane party, at the time of the transaction testified about, shall be allowed to testify in favor of a surviving or sane part}', under circumstances where the principal, a party to the cause, could not testify; nor can a surviving party or agent testify in his own favor, ox in favor of a surviving or sane party, as to transactions or communications with a deceased or insane agent, under circumstances where such witness would be incompetent if deceased agent had been principal.” If this witness was the attorney for the claimant or if this provision embraces mutual agents and the attorneys of both parties, and if this witness was the attorney of both parties, then this witness was incompetent. If this paragraph does not include mutual agents and the attorneys of both parties, and if this witness was the attorney of both parties, then this witness was competent. The agent is a competent witness either for .or against his principal. His interest goes to his credit. Civil Code (1910), § 3606. This is the general rule. It was the law at the time of the passage of the evidence act of 186‘6. Lowrys v. Candler, 64 Ga. 236. That act declared that “ the inquiry after truth in courts of justice is often obstructed by incapacities created by the present law, and it is desirable that full information as to the facts in issue, both in civil and criminal cases, should be laid before the persons who are to decide upon them, and that such persons should exercise their judgment on the credit of the witnesses adduced for the truth of testimony;” and to remove such incapacities this act provided that “no person offered as a witness shall hereafter be excluded, by reason of incapacity from crime or interest, or from being a party-, from giving evidence,” except: (1) when one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue or on trial was dead, or shown to be insane, or where an executor or administrator
By the evidence act of 1889, the legislature, fearing or feeling that it had gone too far in the'act of 1866, took the back track and created some new “ incapacities,” which obstructed “ the inquiry after truth in courts of justice.” One of these is the provision now contained in paragraph 5 of section 5858 of the Code of 1910, as amended by the evidence act of 1890. Another was this: “ No person who was the agent or mutual friend of both parties, or who acted as attorney or counsel for both parties in any transaction between them, shall be a competent witness for the living party touching such transaction.” Ga. Laws 1889, p. 85. By the provision of the act of 1889, now embodied in said paragraph and section of the Code, no agent or attorney at law of either party at the time of the transaction testified about is competent to testify in favor of the surviving or sane party under circumstances where the principal, as a party to the cause, could not testify, that is, such agent or attorney could not testify to transactions or communications had solely with such insane or deceased person; and no surviving party or agent could testify in his own behalf or in behalf of a surviving or sane party as to transactions or communications with the deceased or insane agent under circumstances where such witness would be incompetent if the deceased
In view of the above history of these acts, we are forced to the conclusion that the language in the above paragraph of the Code refers to the agent or attorney of one of the parties to a transaction, and not to the agents or attorneys of both parties. The purpose of the legislature seems to have been, when a transaction was had between a party and the agent of another party, to close the mouth of the surviving party when such agent was dead, and to close the mouth of the agent when the party conducting such transaction in his own behalf is dead; and not to close the mouth of a joint agent or of an attorney who acted for both parties in such transaction. In the latter ease the interest of the attorney in testifying for or against either party will b.e presumed to be equal. So we are of the opinion that the attorney who testified in this case, if he was the attorney of both parties;, was not incompetent to testify as to the agreement 'between the vendor and vendee by which the deed in question was left with him in escrow, and to the terms and conditions on which he was to deliver the
An administrator advertised land of his intestate for sale under a proper order of the court of ordinary. A third person filed a claim thereto. The intestate claimed title to this land under a deed from the claimant. By an amendment to her claim the claimant admitted that the intestate, at the time of her death, was in possession of the premises in dispute under a deed from the claimant. Claimant also admitted in this amendment that the intestate, at the time of her death, was in possession of the deed from the claimant, and that E. D. Whiddon was the duly constituted administrator of the intestate, and was proceeding under an order granted by the ordinary; and the claimant assumed the burden of proving that her deed to the intestate was invalid, because it had never been delivered. On the trial of the case the claimant introduced in evidence her deed to the intestate, embracing the premises in dispute, dated Nov. 5, 1896, reciting a consideration of $450, and recorded Jan. 9, 1897. An attorney at law testified for the claimant, substantially as follows: He prepared the deed from the claimant to the intestate. He, the claimant, and one Eord, who was acting in this transaction for the vendee, Avho was absent, were the only parties present when the deed was prepared. The claimant and Eord stated to him the terms of the trade. Eord was to take up certain claims against the claimant. One was in favor of Sam Earkas for something like $300. Another was a debt in favor of Dan Clements for some $300. The agent of the vendee was to take up these claims at a discount, and the claimant was to have the benefit of such discount. There were two guano notes for $40 each in favor of William Eord, signed by two negroes and the husband of the claimant. They were to be paid in full. There was a small balance, after taking up these debts, which was to be paid to the claimant in cash. The witness was there at Mr. Eord’s instance, representing him.. They agreed that witness should hold the deed
The claimant testified that she did not remember when she was last in possession of the premises in dispute. When she moved out she put a tenant in the house, and kept one there two or three years. After this tenant moved out she put Sol Hall in possession. She had never received anything from the attorney as part of the purchase-price of this land. The debts which Ford was to take up were those of her husband.'
There was evidence that the guano notes referred to above were the debts of the husband of claimant. It appeared that the vendee died in possession of the premises in dispute, and had lived on them for four or five years prior to her death. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the claimant; and error is assigned on this direction of a verdict on the ground that it was not demanded by the evidence, and that there were issues of fact that could only be determined by a jury.
The court erred in directing a verdict for the claimant under the facts which, in substance, we have fully set out above. The court can only direct a verdict when it is demanded as directed. There were issues of fact which could only he decided by the jury. There was evidence from which the jury was authorized to find that the attorney who drew the deed from the claimant to the intestate was acting for the claimant in holding this deed in escrow. The jury should have been instructed that if they found that the attorney was acting in this transaction as the attorney or agent of the claimant alone, they should disregard his testimony in regard to the terms and conditions upon which''he was to deliver this deed to the vendee, as the agent of the 'latter, who conducted this transaction in her behalf, was dead.
Again, this deed was recorded. From this, a presumption arises-that it had been duly delivered to the grantee. Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. 364 (9 S. E. 1068). The record of a deed is proof of delivery. Fletcher v. Horne, 75 Ga. 134. The fact that a deed was attested by a proper officer and purported on its face to have been delivered raises a presumption of delivery. Bourquin v. Bourquin, 110 Ga. 440 (35 S. E. 710). Possession of a deed by a grantee is
Judgment reversed.