Ash v. Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ash v. Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co.

107 S.E. 342, 27 Ga. App. 35, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1921

Docket12238

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 342 (Ash v. Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ash v. Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Co., 107 S.E. 342, 27 Ga. App. 35, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 661 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The Spell Live Stock Company held a mortgage on two mules, and the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company held a junior mortgage on one of them. The Spell Company transferred its mortgage to the Perry Live Stock Company, and subsequently the mortgagor sold the mule covered by both mortgages to T. C. Ash. The Perry Live Stock Company was about to foreclose its mortgage on this mule, and in order to protect his title thereto Ash paid off this mortgage to the Perry Live Stock Company, and he was never repaid by the mortgagor. Ash, however, did not proceed against the other mule covered by the mortgage of the livestock companies, to whose rights he claimed to be subrogated by reason of having paid their mortgage for the purpose of protecting his title to the mule in question. Subsequently the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company foreclosed its mortgage, and the mortgaged mule, which was in the possession of Ash, was seized and sold. A rule against the sheriff, for distribution of the fund in his hands, was granted upon the petition of the oil company, and Ash intervened and claimed the fund. The case was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury, and he rendered a finding and judgment in favor of the oil company..

Under the well-settled equitable principle, codified in section 3330 of .the Civil Code of 1910, that, “as among themselves, credi[36]*36tors must so prosecute their own rights as not unnecessarily to jeopard the rights of others; hence a creditor having a lien on two funds of the debtor, equally accessible to him, will be compelled to pursue the one on which other creditors have' no lien,” the court did not err in awarding the funds in its hands to the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company. See, in this connection, Moore v. Cofield, 10 Ga. App. 197 (73 S. E. 45).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, C. J.

The Spell Live Stock Company held a mortgage on two mules, and the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company held a junior mortgage on one of them. The Spell Company transferred its mortgage to the Perry Live Stock Company, and subsequently the mortgagor sold the mule covered by both mortgages to T. C. Ash. The Perry Live Stock Company was about to foreclose its mortgage on this mule, and in order to protect his title thereto Ash paid off this mortgage to the Perry Live Stock Company, and he was never repaid by the mortgagor. Ash, however, did not proceed against the other mule covered by the mortgage of the livestock companies, to whose rights he claimed to be subrogated by reason of having paid their mortgage for the purpose of protecting his title to the mule in question. Subsequently the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company foreclosed its mortgage, and the mortgaged mule, which was in the possession of Ash, was seized and sold. A rule against the sheriff, for distribution of the fund in his hands, was granted upon the petition of the oil company, and Ash intervened and claimed the fund. The case was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury, and he rendered a finding and judgment in favor of the oil company..

Under the well-settled equitable principle, codified in section 3330 of .the Civil Code of 1910, that, “as among themselves, credi[36]*36tors must so prosecute their own rights as not unnecessarily to jeopard the rights of others; hence a creditor having a lien on two funds of the debtor, equally accessible to him, will be compelled to pursue the one on which other creditors have' no lien,” the court did not err in awarding the funds in its hands to the Fitzgerald Cotton Oil Company. See, in this connection, Moore v. Cofield, 10 Ga. App. 197 (73 S. E. 45).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 342, 27 Ga. App. 35, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-fitzgerald-cotton-oil-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack