Bank of LaGrange v. Rutland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of LaGrange v. Rutland

108 S.E. 821, 27 Ga. App. 442, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 952

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1921

Docket12154

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 821 (Bank of LaGrange v. Rutland) 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

Bank of LaGrange v. Rutland, 108 S.E. 821, 27 Ga. App. 442, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 952 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Butland sued out a fraudulent debtor’s attachment, alleging that the debtor had transferred his stock and fixtures to the Bank of LaGrange without first giving the notice to creditors required by the “bulk-sale act.” After the levy the transferee filed a claim. From the evidence in the claim case it appeared that the stock and fixtures transferred consisted of meat-market fixtures and some meat, which constituted “the entire meat market, including all fixtures and stock on hand.” It was admitted by the claimant, that while the transfer was made in an attempted settlement and payment of a previous security bill of sale, only $225 was due on this bill of sale at the time of the transfer. On the trial and in argument to this court the transferee did not seek to defend the legality of the transfer, but based its claim upon a right of title under its original bill of sale, executed by the debtor to secure a debt and recorded more than a year before the transfer. It appears that this bill of sale was not canceled of record. The claimant contended that the levy of the attachment was invalid, because the attacking creditor did not before the levy redeem the property by a payment in full of the debt secured by the bill of sale. The jury found the property subject to the levy “ excepting $225 balance covered by the bill of sale,” and the court rendered judgment as follows: ■“ That the property levied upon by the attachment is subject to the levy made in this case, except that the Bank of LaGrange shall receive and be paid from the sale of said property when sold the sum of $225.” The claimant moved for a new trial upon the general grounds, the motion was overruled, and the movant excepted. The attacking creditor filed no motion for new trial or cross-bill of exceptions as to that part of the verdict and judgment which recognized the validity and priority of the original security bill of sale.

It is not necessary to elaborate the rulings stated in the head-notes. Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Butland sued out a fraudulent debtor’s attachment, alleging that the debtor had transferred his stock and fixtures to the Bank of LaGrange without first giving the notice to creditors required by the “bulk-sale act.” After the levy the transferee filed a claim. From the evidence in the claim case it appeared that the stock and fixtures transferred consisted of meat-market fixtures and some meat, which constituted “the entire meat market, including all fixtures and stock on hand.” It was admitted by the claimant, that while the transfer was made in an attempted settlement and payment of a previous security bill of sale, only $225 was due on this bill of sale at the time of the transfer. On the trial and in argument to this court the transferee did not seek to defend the legality of the transfer, but based its claim upon a right of title under its original bill of sale, executed by the debtor to secure a debt and recorded more than a year before the transfer. It appears that this bill of sale was not canceled of record. The claimant contended that the levy of the attachment was invalid, because the attacking creditor did not before the levy redeem the property by a payment in full of the debt secured by the bill of sale. The jury found the property subject to the levy “ excepting $225 balance covered by the bill of sale,” and the court rendered judgment as follows: ■“ That the property levied upon by the attachment is subject to the levy made in this case, except that the Bank of LaGrange shall receive and be paid from the sale of said property when sold the sum of $225.” The claimant moved for a new trial upon the general grounds, the motion was overruled, and the movant excepted. The attacking creditor filed no motion for new trial or cross-bill of exceptions as to that part of the verdict and judgment which recognized the validity and priority of the original security bill of sale.

It is not necessary to elaborate the rulings stated in the head-notes. Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 821, 27 Ga. App. 442, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-lagrange-v-rutland-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack