Bacon v. Hanesley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bacon v. Hanesley

97 S.E. 101, 22 Ga. App. 704, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 702

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1918

Docket9742

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 101 (Bacon v. Hanesley) 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

Bacon v. Hanesley, 97 S.E. 101, 22 Ga. App. 704, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

The present trover action grew out of another suit between the same parties, which was. reviewed by this coui't in a former decision (19 Ga. App. 69, 90 S. E. 1033), where the identical mortgage-[705]*705foreclosure proceeding under which the defendant now claims title ta the property sued for was held to be absolutely void.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Trover; from city court of Americus—Judge Harper. April 15, 1918.

Wallis & Fort, fox plaintiff. B. L. Maynard, fox defendant. •

(a) The mortgage-foreclosure proceeding, being void ab initio, could not be revived by a “sliort-order” proceeding for a sale of the property under the Civil Code (1910), § 6068 et seq. .Nothing done in pursuance thereof could render a sale thereunder legal, and the purchaser at such a sale obtained no title whatever to the property. Consequently the trial judge erred in directing a verdict in his favor.

2. In view of the foregoing holding it is unnecessary to discuss other grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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