Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(DOWNLOAD) "Hilton v. Hilton Et Al." by Supreme Court of Georgia # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

Hilton v. Hilton Et Al.

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Hilton v. Hilton Et Al.
  • Author : Supreme Court of Georgia
  • Release Date : January 04, 1947
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 50 KB

Description

Lula Hilton brought a suit in equity against Mrs. W. G. S. Rowe and Alonzo Hilton, alleging that she, together with the defendants, had entered into a parol contract by which it was agreed that the plaintiff should purchase from Mrs. Rowe the east half, and Alonzo Hilton the west half of a described city lot. It was further alleged that through mistake and inadvertence on the part of Mrs. Rowe, and with knowledge and fraudulent intent on the part of Alonzo Hilton, Mrs. Rowe had deeded by specific description more than one-half of the premises to Alonzo Hilton, and subsequently through mutual misapprehension as to the amount of land remaining in the lot, conveyed the balance to the plaintiff. The petition prayed that both the deeds above referred to be reformed so as to conform to the intention of the parties under the parol agreement, and for specific performance of the parol agreement. Alonzo Hilton attacked the petition on general demurrer on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff, Lula Hilton, and the defendant, Alonzo Hilton, the other grantee, and urged that the plaintiff could not, therefore, maintain her action to reform the deed made to him. Error is assigned on the order sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition as to the defendant Alonzo Hilton. Held : 1. Primarily, the right to reform a contract belongs to the original parties thereto. The recognized extension under the Code, § 37-213, in favor of those in privity with the original contractors does not mean that the terms of a contract can be altered and reformed by one who does not claim as a successor under the contract sought to be reformed, but under another contract setting up different and inconsistent rights. Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. 624, 628 (1 S.E.2d 423); Garlington v. Blount, 146 Ga. 527 (91 S.E. 553).


Free Download "Hilton v. Hilton Et Al." PDF ePub Kindle