Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912

Clayton v. Newberry

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided September 27, 1912 · Atkinson

138 Ga. 735; 76 S.E. 63; 1912 Ga. LEXIS 680

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Callaway v. White (Ga. 1966)
Smith v. Georgia Industrial Realty Co. (Ga. 1959)
Ogletree v. Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co. (Ga. 1952)
Malone v. Klaer (Ga. 1948)
Washington Manufacturing Co. v. Wickersham (Ga. 1947)
Whitfield v. Maddox (Ga. 1940)
Wardlaw v. Wardlaw (Ga. 1936)
Reeves v. Whittle (Ga. 1930)
Maxwell v. Citizens Bank (Ga. 1927)
Lancaster v. Wilson (Ga. 1921)
Horine v. Hicks (Ga. Ct. App. 1920)
Rhode v. Gallat (Fla. 1915)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Atkinson, J.

1. Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land will not be decreed unless the land which is the subject-matter of the alleged sale is clearly identified in the contract. A description of land in a written contract as “part of lot No. 200 in the sixth district and second section of said county [the county being elsewhere named], containing fifteen acres, more or less,” is insufficient. Estes v. Winn, 136 Ga. 344 (71 S. E. 470).

2. There was no effort to reform the writing upon which the action was founded; and henee the plaintiff must abide by the contract as written.

3. The questions decided in the first note control the case. They were *736raised by demurrer to the petition, objections to the admissibility of evidence, motion for nonsuit, and exception as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the judgment. In each instance the judge erred in deciding contrary to the rulings above announced, and in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

September 27, 1912.

Specific performance. Before Judge Morris. Gilmer superior court. May 16, 1911.

A. H. Burtz, for plaintiff in error. J. Z. Foster, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.