Spears v. Fendig
Spears v. Fendig
Opinion of the Court
Spears, as temporary administrator of Monroe Phillips, sued Fendig in the city court of Brunswick, alleging substantially that the defendant had damaged him in his capacity as temporary administrator, by reason of the following facts: From May 1 to September 10, 1910, the said Monroe Phillips, J. W. Hall, and. Fendig were jointly engaged' in securing, by means of options thereon ox direct purchase in some instances,'the control and the right to dispose of a large body of timber; the scheme being to dispose of the timber as a whole for a sum of money'they had paid or bargained to pay, the net profit to be equally divided between them; that the said timber was sold to Dodge Lumber Company on September 10, 1910; that the said scheme at its inception contemplated the taking of title to all of the said timber in the name of the defendant; that among the tracts of timber that the defendant and his associates desired to include in the said sale was one 214-acre tract of timber on which Monroe Phillips held an option, and which was conveyed by deed on June 24, 1910, by one Hendricks to the defendant, at the express direction of Monroe Phillips, the purpose of the said conveyance being solely to carry out the scheme of placing in the' defendant the • title to all tracts secured, in order that the whole body of timber when secured might be more expeditiously disposed of, tjiere being
The defendant demurred, upon the grounds: that the petition set out no valid and legal cause of action as against him; that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations; and that a temporary administrator has no lawful authority to institute or maintain an action of this kind. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit, and the ■ plaintiff excepted.
By this petition the temporary administrator undertook, in the city court of Brunswick, to have the. court set up a trust, and, after setting up the trust, to recover for a conversion of the trust fund, and in addition thereto to set up title in his intestate to the property held in trust. We are of the opinion that the city court of Brunswick was without jurisdiction to determine the cause pleaded. If the defendant had not conveyed the land and still held the same, it cannot be said that in the city court of Brunswick the plaintiff could have the trust established and have the title decreed to be in him. It being necessary in this action that the plaintiff show title to have been in his intestate, the city court of Brunswick would not have jurisdiction. Moreover, we do not think a temporary administrator may maintain the action pleaded. Banks v. Walker, 112 Ga. 542 (37 S. E. 866); Jones v. Cliett, 114 Ga. 673 (40 S. E. 719). The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer, for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction to determine the cause, and the temporary administrator was without authority to maintain the action.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.