Lanier v. Dyer

5 Citing cases

  1. Dyer v. Lanier

    162 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. 1968)   Cited 1 times

    The litigation began when the brother, John H. Lanier, individually and as administrator cum testamento annexo, filed suit in the Superior Court of Chatham County against Annie Mae Dyer and William J. Dyer. The suit sought injunction against dispossessory warrant proceedings which the sister and her husband had initiated against him as to the property in dispute, cancellation of certain deeds purporting to place title to the property in the sister and her husband, injunction against their interfering with his possession of the mother's estate as administrator, and decree that such property is held in trust by the sister and her husband for the mother's estate and that he is entitled to possession of the property as administrator until settlement of the estate. This court, in Lanier v. Dyer, 222 Ga. 30 ( 148 S.E.2d 432), held that while the petition failed to set forth a cause of action for cancellation of the deeds because of nonjoinder of parties defendant, it did set forth allegations sufficient to state a cause of action against the sister and her husband for injunction and other equitable relief, including the creation of a constructive trust. The opinion pointed out that upon the mother's death the brother and the sister became tenants in common of the property in dispute.

  2. Waldrop v. Bettis

    157 S.E.2d 870 (Ga. 1967)   Cited 12 times
    In Waldrop v. Bettis, 223 Ga. 715 (157 S.E.2d 870) (1967), this court held that plaintiff's petition in equity for the removal of clouds on plaintiffs' title to described property stated a cause of action against general demurrer.

    "It is generally held that tenants in common sustain such a confidential relation to each other, with respect to their interests in the common property and the common title under which they hold, that it would be inequitable to permit one of them, without the consent of the others, to buy an outstanding adversary's claim to the common estate and assert it for his exclusive benefit, to the injury or prejudice of his cotenants; and if one cotenant does actually acquire such a claim, he is, unless the contrary appears, to be regarded as holding it in trust for the benefit of his cotenants in proportion to their respective interests." Hardin v. Council, 200 Ga. 822, 830 ( 38 S.E.2d 549); Lanier v. Dyer, 222 Ga. 30, 32 ( 148 S.E.2d 432). The defendants contend that under the allegations of the petition, George W. Waldrop, father of the parties, never acquired title to the property described and that the parties, therefore, never became tenants in common.

  3. Empire Shoe Co. v. Regal Shoe Shops

    182 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    But the fifth headnote of this case makes it quite clear that the purchaser's remedy will be protected only by a court of equity. See in this connection O'Neal v. O'Neal, 176 Ga. 418 ( 168 S.E. 262); Bateman v. Patterson, 212 Ga. 284 ( 92 S.E.2d 8); Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Ga. 689 ( 100 S.E.2d 888); Lucas v. Bonner, 216 Ga. 334 ( 116 S.E.2d 548); Wells v. Wells, 216 Ga. 384 ( 116 S.E.2d 586); Lanier v. Dyer, 222 Ga. 30 ( 148 S.E.2d 432); Wall v. Wall, 176 Ga. 757 (4) ( 168 S.E. 893). Again, the Civil Court of Fulton County is without equitable jurisdiction to grant affirmative equitable relief, even where it is asserted as a defense since the court must declare an implied or constructive trust. 2.

  4. Dyer v. Lanier

    161 S.E.2d 426 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

    The Supreme Court has already properly assumed jurisdiction of an earlier appeal in this action, holding that "the petition does set forth a cause of action for injunctive and other equitable relief" and reversing the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer thereto. Lanier v. Dyer, 222 Ga. 30, 32 ( 148 S.E.2d 432). The "injunctive and other equitable relief" not having been eliminated from the case, jurisdiction of the present appeal, from the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff-appellee's motion for a summary judgment, is likewise in the Supreme Court, to which the case is transferred. Transferred to the Supreme Court. Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

  5. Franklin v. Parks

    77 Okla. 280 (Okla. 1920)   Cited 5 times

    "Not existing or occurring through necessity; dependent on a foreseen possibility; provisionally liable to exist, happen, or take effect in the future; possible, or liable, but not certain, to occur; dependent on that which is undetermined or unknown; dependent for effect on something that may or may not occur." In Greene, Adm'r v. Dyer, 32 Me. 460, it was said: "In the case of a contingent claim, the contingency does not relate to the amount which may be due or which may be recovered, but to the uncertainty whether any amount will ever become due."