
    Murphy v. Davis.
    Submitted January 20,
    —Decided March 6, 1905.
    Petition for specific performance. Before Judge Seabrook. Appling superior court. January 9, 1904.
    The petition of Davis against Murphy alleged, that they entered into a -parol contract by which Davis agreed to render certain services to Murphy, in consideration of which Murphy agreed to execute a conveyance of certain land owned by him to certain children of Davis, reserving to himself a life-estate in the land; that Davis rendered the services as agreed; and that Murphy refused to comply with his part of the contract. It was prayed that Murphy be required to execute the conveyance to the children named. The defendant in his answer denied these allegations. At the trial the plaintiff supported the allegations by his testimony. No testimony was introduced .by the defendant. The court directed a verdict and rendered a decree in accordance with it, requiring the defendant to execute to the children named a conveyance of the land described in the petition. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence; the motion was overruled, and he excepted. Counsel for the plaintiff in error contended that the recovery was unwarranted, because the relief granted was to persons who were not parties to the suit; and cited Civil Code, §§4939, 4946; Ga. JR. 97/524-5; 113/970; 116/872-901. Opposing counsel cited Civil Code, §4037; Ga. B. 45/182; 72/205.
   Evans, J.

The plaintiff having proved his case as laid, and no evidence being introduced in behalf of the defendant, the trial court Committed no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 873.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

N. J. Holton an,d W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff' in error.

E. B. Graham and J. H. Thomas, contra.  