63 S.E.2d 215
17301.Supreme Court of Georgia.JANUARY 8, 1951.
REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 15, 1951.
HAWKINS, Justice.
1. Since it appears from a supplemental certificate by the clerk of the trial court, filed in response to an order of this court, that the intervention and the amendments thereto in this equitable proceeding were duly filed in that court, they became a part of the pleadings and record in the case, and were properly specified as a part of the record in the bill of exceptions assigning error upon the refusal to allow the prayer for intervention. Branan v. Baxter Co., 122 Ga. 222
(50 S.E. 45).
2. While it is the general practice in equity to permit strangers to a litigation, who claim and show an interest in such a matter, to intervene and assert and have established rights which would be affected by the decree in the case, a stranger without any interest needing protection in a cause is not entitled to intervene therein. Allen v. Mitchell, 143 Ga. 476, 478 (85 S.E. 336); Ogletree v. Atkinson, 195 Ga. 32 (1) (22 S.E.2d 783).
3. Under the record in this case, James H. Crowley would have an undivided two-thirds interest in the large tract of land involved, even though the plaintiff should be successful in setting aside her deed to him to an undivided one-third interest therein. While the intervention alleges that “Intervenor is advised that the only asset James H. Crowley has is his equity in the real property described herein,” it fails to show what amount, if any, is now due by James H. Crowley to the Bank of Thomas County, which debt is secured by his loan deed to it; and makes no allegation whatever as to the value of this land, or of
Page 516
the undivided two-thirds interest of James H. Crowley therein, and thus fails to show that the intervenor’s judgment lien cannot be fully satisfied from such undivided interest in the large tract of land, consisting of 1320.98 acres. The intervention thus failing to show any interest of the intervenor needing protection in the cause, it is not entitled to intervene therein. The allegation that, “Should the court grant the relief prayed by the plaintiff, . . intervenor would suffer irreparable damage” is a mere conclusion without any sufficient facts being alleged to support it. Washington Seminary v. Bass, 192 Ga. 808, 809 (2) (16 S.E.2d 565); Imperial Hotel Co. v. Martin, 199 Ga. 801, 804
(35 S.E.2d 502). 4. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the intervention.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
No. 17301. JANUARY 8, 1951. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 15, 1951.
Cancellation, etc. Before Judge Lilly. Thomas Superior Court. August 17, 1950.
On November 7, 1949, Mrs. Charles L. Crowley, alleging that she was the wife of James H. Crowley, and was living with him as such at the time she executed a deed conveying to him an undivided one-third interest in a described tract of land consisting of 1320.98 acres, known as a portion of the Chinquapin Plantation, brought her equitable action in the Superior Court of Thomas County, against James H. Crowley, Bank of Thomas County, and United States of America, alleging: that the deed made by her to her husband on December 23, 1946, was void and of no effect as against the plaintiff, because it was made on a valuable consideration consisting of promissory notes in the sum of $9166.67, which had never been paid, and without the approval of the superior court of the county of the plaintiff’s residence, contrary to the law of the State of Georgia; that, since the execution of that deed, her husband, James H. Crowley, had made to the Bank of Thomas County a security deed on said land to secure an original principal sum of $50,000, and that on May 6, 1946, the Internal Revenue Department had filed and recorded a notice of tax lien in favor of the United States and against James H. Crowley for the sum of $39,103.92; that the deed from James H. Crowley to the bank was void and of no effect as against the plaintiff’s interest in the land, because he did not have title to the interest of the plaintiff in said land at that time, and has not acquired such title since; and that the plaintiff had notice by the records of said county that the said James H. Crowley did not have title to the plaintiff’s interest
Page 517
in the land; that the notice of tax lien referred to is void as against the plaintiff’s interest in the land, because James H. Crowley did not have title to the plaintiff’s interest in said land at the time of said notice, and has not since had title to the same. She prayed that the deed from her husband, the security deed from her husband to the bank, and the tax lien referred to be canceled as clouds upon her title, and that title to an undivided one-third interest in the land be decreed in the plaintiff, and for other relief.
On April 14, 1950, before any hearing had been held in said case, Land O’Lakes Creameries Inc. presented its petition for intervention, with its proposed intervention attached thereto — which was ordered filed pending the hearing thereon — in which the intervenor alleged: that it was interested in the subject-matter, for the reason that in November and December, 1946, it had sold large quantities of dairy products aggregating $75,000 to the corporation known as Crowley Dairy Products Inc., of which James H. Crowley was president and holder of 17,845 shares of common stock of the 31,080 shares outstanding, and of which corporation Mrs. Charles L. Crowley was also a large stockholder and officer; that the account of this corporation became in arrears, and on January 20, 1947, it gave notes to the intervenor for the amount of its obligation, and among the notes thus given were two notes for $15,000 each, and as an inducement to the intervenor to accept these notes, James H. Crowley endorsed them in his individual capacity; that the corporation in July, 1947, filed a petition in reorganization, and was subsequently adjudicated a bankrupt in May, 1949; that the intervenor has received from the bankruptcy proceeding dividends aggregating $4,800, and will not receive more than $1,200 in further dividends from that proceeding, and will suffer a loss of $25,000 on the two notes endorsed by James H. Crowley; that it has instituted a suit against him, on these two notes and his endorsement thereon, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which suit was pending at the time the intervention was filed, and by amendment it is alleged that a judgment for $25,200 was obtained against James H. Crowley in that court on June 4, 1950. The intervention, as amended, further alleges that, prior to the formation
Page 518
of the corporation known as Crowley Dairy Products Inc., the plaintiff, Mrs. Charles L. Crowley, her husband, James H. Crowley, and her son, William M. Luckie, did business as a partnership known as Crowley Dairy Products; and that, among the assets of this partnership, was the real estate described in the petition and covered by the deed sought to be set aside; that, upon the formation of the corporation, all of the assets of the partnership except the described real estate were purchased from the partnership by the corporation and transferred to it in consideration for the issuance of stock in the corporation; that, as a part of the settlement agreement of the partnership, the real estate was conveyed to James H. Crowley by the other two partners, Mrs. Charles L. Crowley and William M. Luckie; and that the plaintiff came into court with unclean hands, and is estopped to contest the validity of the deed made by her to her husband.
To the allowance of this intervention the plaintiff objected, upon the grounds that the intervenor had no interest in the subject-matter, and that the intervention set up nothing to authorize a denial of the prayers of the plaintiff’s petition. To the judgment sustaining these objections and refusing to allow the intervention, the intervenor excepts, insisting that it sets up four valid defenses to the plaintiff’s petition: (a) that the deed from the plaintiff to her husband was not a sale of a wife’s separate estate to her husband, but was made in settlement of the partnership formed by Mrs. Crowley, her husband, and her son; (b) that, even if it was a sale, the plaintiff is estopped as against the intervenor from defeating its lien against this property; (c) that the plaintiff’s right of action was taken away by the act of 1950, p. 174, repealing Code § 53-504, under the provisions of which the present proceeding is brought; (d) that, because of the facts stated in the intervention, the plaintiff comes into a court of equity with unclean hands and the relief sought by her should be denied.
Hall Bloch, Denmark Groover Jr., J. Rene’ Hawkins, an Alexander, Vann Lilly, for plaintiff in error.
Forester Calhoun, Jesse J. Gainey, and John P. Cowart, contra.
Page 519