Avery & Co. v. Farmers Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Avery & Co. v. Farmers Bank

93 S.E. 229, 20 Ga. App. 717, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1917

Docket8423

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E. 229 (Avery & Co. v. Farmers Bank) 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

Avery & Co. v. Farmers Bank, 93 S.E. 229, 20 Ga. App. 717, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The decision of the Supreme ’ Court on a former writ of error in this case (Farmers Bank of Doerun v. Avery, 145 Ga, 449, 89 S. E. 409) is the law of the case. It was then held “that upon the trial of the issue made where the vendor of the personalty filed a claim to the property levied on, the judgment lien had priority over the unrecorded conditional bill of sale, and that a verdict finding the property not subject was not authorized.”

(a). In the present case it appears that the contract embracing the reservation of title, executed in conformity with a prior agreement that the [718]*718contract of sale should nottake effect until the signing of the retention-of-title note, was duly recorded within the time prescribed by law.

Decided August 3, 1917.

Levy and claim; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. December 19, 1916.

E. L. Bryan, for plaintiffs in error. J. L. Dowling, contra.

2. The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the claimant, and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed,.

George and Luke, JJ., eoneur.

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