Legal Opinion
Blaylock v. Hackel
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided May 4, 1927No. 5681PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
1. The deed as written evidences a sale of the land therein conveyed as one by the tract and not by the acre, and conveys all the land within the boundaries therein given. Georgia & Florida Development Co. v. Buck, 134 Ga. 674 (68 S. E. 514); Rawlings v. Cohen, 143 Ga. 726 (85 S. E. 851); May v. Sorrell, 153 Ga. 47, 53 (111 S. E. 810). Unless such instrument is reformed, it can not be show by parol that the sale was one by the acre and not by the tract.
2. The petition does not make a case for cancellation of the deed, as it fails to allege restoration or an offer to restore the consideration…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- May v. SorrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Williams v. FottchéSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- May v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- McLaren v. SteappSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Whittle v. NottinghamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Tietjen v. MeldrimSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Stegall v. Southwest Ga. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Peoples Loan Company v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Peoples Loan Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Arteaga v. ArteagaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.