Lunsford v. King

3 Citing cases

  1. Martin v. Patton

    225 Ga. App. 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 11 times

    The absence of title to part of the land described is distinguished from a deficiency in area. Holliday v. Ashford, 163 Ga. 505 ( 136 S.E. 524) (1927); Godwin v. Maxwell, 106 Ga. 194 ( 32 S.E. 114) (1898); Smith v. Eason, 46 Ga. 316 (1872); Lunsford v. King, 132 Ga. App. 749 ( 209 S.E.2d 27) (1974). "When land is conveyed by metes and bounds, whether there be more or less than the quantity named, the purchaser obtains the whole of it. . . . If the quantity conveyed is specified as `more or less,' it is generally understood that the parties assume the risk of a gain or loss in the quantity estimated. . . . A deed that describes a tract as containing a definite area and that gives definite boundaries on three sides but an indefinite boundary on the fourth, in the absence of a manifest contrary intent, will be deemed as locating the fourth side parallel to the side opposite it so that the tract encloses the area specified."

  2. Etheridge v. Fried

    360 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times

    It therefore follows that appellee's right to recover for a breach of the warranty deed would not be "defeated by [her] constructive knowledge of the prior recorded deed to the county. `A general warranty of title in a deed against the claims of all persons covers defects in the title though known to the purchaser at the time of taking the deed.' [Cit.]" Lunsford v. King, 132 Ga. App. 749, 750 ( 209 S.E.2d 27) (1974). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee as to appellant's liability for breach of warranty deed, leaving for jury resolution as to that claim only the issue of "the amount of the unliquidated damages [to which she would be entitled] for the `reduction of the price according to the relative value of the land so lost.' [Cit.

  3. Mansell v. Pappas

    274 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 3 times

    "The plaintiff's rights to recovery of damages under Code 29-202 [rights of purchaser losing land from defect of title], is not defeated by his constructive knowledge of the prior recorded deed to the county. `A general warranty of title in a deed against the claims of all persons covers defects in the title though known to the purchaser at the time of taking the deed' Code § 29-304." Lunsford v. King, 132 Ga. App. 749, 750 ( 209 S.E.2d 27). Nor is an offer to rescind necessary to recover on a covenant of warranty. Code Ann. § 29-305.