Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 22, 1989No. S89A0231, S89X0249PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Weltner, Justice.

Dixon conveyed twelve acres of land to Chapman. Chapman obtained a loan on the property, and later conveyed the land to Murphy. Dixon and Murphy assumed Chapman’s loan and paid it.

It was at that point that Dixon and Murphy — who are mother and son — fell out. Dixon claims that the land was to be reconveyed to her when the loan was paid. Murphy, however, refused to convey, whereupon Dixon and Chapman filed an action to cancel and set aside the deed.1 After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict for Dixon and Chapman. The trial court granted to Murphy a judgment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fuller v. FullerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
  2. Harrell v. HarrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
  3. Sewell v. NorrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  4. Sparks v. SparksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. West v. WestDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1992
  2. Arcturus International LLC v. Geller-StoffDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2024
  3. Dixon v. MurphySupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  4. Miko Hudson v. Frances JudgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API