Opinion
17137.
SEPTEMBER 14, 1950.
Land registration. Before Judge Rowland. Twiggs Superior Court. March 9, 1950.
Kenneth L. Leake and S. Gus Jones, for plaintiffs. James D. Shannon, Carlisle Bootle, and Martin, Snow Grant, for defendants.
1. No valid decree registering the title to lands can be entered without allegations and proof of good title in the applicant. Rock Run Iron Co. v. Miller, 156 Ga. 136 ( 118 S.E. 670); Thomasson v. Coleman, 176 Ga. 375 ( 167 S.E. 879).
2. The answer and cross-action of the movants clearly demonstrate that they have no record title to the lands claimed by them. The record shows that the lands were sold on application of Mary L. Martin (formerly Mary L. Manning), guardian of Rutha Mae Manning and P. W. Manning, and that the application and all subsequent proceedings were had in substantial compliance with the laws governing sales by guardians. No relief is sought as to the alleged fraudulent acts of W. H. Simmons by cancellation, of the guardian's deed; and without the relief of cancellation, the movants can not prove any title to the land they seek to have registered.
3. Without proper parties, appropriate pleadings and prayers, even a court of equity can not grant the relief of cancellation. Kehr v. Floyd Co., 132 Ga. 626 ( 64 S.E. 673); Taylor v. Colley, 138 Ga. 41 ( 74 S.E. 694). Under the foregoing rules, no relief could be granted on the motion, cross-action, and intervention of Betty Jean Manning et al., and the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
No. 17137. SEPTEMBER 14, 1950.
On January 30, 1950, Betty Jean Manning and Carl Manning, minors, acting through their mother, Mrs. Estelle Manning Forsyth, as next friend, and Mrs. Estelle Manning Forsyth and Mrs. Rutha Mae Manning Byrd filed "their joint and several motion" (and intervention) in the proceeding filed by William Henry Simmons under the Land Registration Act ( Burgess v. Simmons, et vice versa, ante, p. 291). They alleged: Simmons in his application to register the title to described land in his name included seventy acres of land which belong to the movants as tenants in common. The fact of their ownership was known to Simmons and, with a conscious intent to deprive them of their property, he instituted the proceeding and failed to name them as parties defendant. By reason of such failure, the movants have not had their day in court, and they ask that all entries upon the court records in the land-registration case which in any way cast a cloud upon their title be declared null and void, and that they be allowed a reasonable time to perfect their pleadings for a cross-action for registration in their name of the seventy acres, under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. They prayed for a rule nisi directed to Simmons, requiring him to show cause why they should not be made parties, and that the relief sought by Simmons be denied.
This motion was demurred to by Simmons. On March 9, 1950, the movants filed pleadings termed an answer and cross-petition. After admitting certain allegations of Simmons' application, and denying others, they alleged that W. H. Simmons and J. W. Simmons conspired together to wrongfully deprive P. W. Manning and Rutha Mae Manning Byrd, then minors, of their land, in 1912, and did do so by procuring their guardian, through false representations, duress, and intimidation, to transfer the land to J. W. Simmons for the grossly inadequate consideration of $215. It was alleged: W. H. Simmons made a secret survey and inspection of the premises and ascertained that the land had valuable deposits of minerals and kaolin. W. H. Simmons gave Julian Martin, husband of the guardian, one gallon of peach brandy and $25 in money to represent to the guardian that the land was of no value. Martin did so inform her, and beat her, and abused her with vile language, causing her to wrongfully apply to the court of ordinary for an order of sale of the land, making false representations to the ordinary that the land was only of the value of $215. P. W. Manning (father of Betty Jean Manning and Carl Manning) had no knowledge of the fraud before his death. The movants had no knowledge of the fraudulent procurement of the guardian's deed until after a jury trial was had in the land-registration case filed by Simmons, when Mrs. Rutha Mae Byrd was then put upon inquiry, and diligently sought out information and circumstances of the transfer (above described), and communicated the facts to Mrs. Forsyth. The movants asked that the prayers of W. H. Simmons, with reference to registration of the seventy acres of land be denied. They attached as a part of their answer and cross-action a cross-petition for registration wherein "applicants pray process and judgment accordingly."
The demurrer of W. H. Simmons to the petition and cross-action, as amended, was renewed and was sustained. The exception is to that judgment.