Barrow v. E. Tris Napier Co.

85 S.E. 267, 16 Ga. App. 309, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 601
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 7, 1915
Docket5915
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 267 (Barrow v. E. Tris Napier 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
Barrow v. E. Tris Napier Co., 85 S.E. 267, 16 Ga. App. 309, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. A mortgage attested by a notary public who is secretary and treasurer of the corporation to which it is given is not properly executed, and therefore not admissible for record; and a record of such a mortgage is not constructive notice to persons dealing with the mortgagor. Betts-Evans Trading Co. v. Bass, 2 Ga. App. 719 (59 S. E. 8).

2. Eor the reason stated above, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in [310]*310fi. fa. was not authorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Decided May 7, 1915. .Levy and claim; from municipal court of Macon — Judge Daly. July 11, 1914. Freeman mortgaged a mare to E. Tris Napiér Company, and, after the mortgage had been recorded, sold the mare to Barrow, who was without actual notice of the mortgage. Afterwards the mortgage was foreclosed, and, when the execution in favor of the mortgagee was levied on the mare, Barrow filed a claim to the property. Ón the trial of the claim case the foregoing facts appeared in evidence. It further appeared that the notary public who attested the execution of the mortgage was at the time of the attestation the “secretary-treasurer” of the mortgagee; and, because of this fact and for the reason stated in the foregoing decision, the claimant moved that the mortgage be excluded from evidence. This motion was overruled; and the judge (who tried the ease without a jury) rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case came to this court on exceptions to the overruling of the claimant’s motion for a new trial, based on the grounds that the judge erred in not sustaining the objections to the mortgage, and that the judg- \ ment was contrary to law and to the evidence. A. T. Walden, for plaintiff in error. B. L. Williams, Byals & Anderson, contra.

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

Related

FOURTH NATIONAL BANK &C. v. Howell
90 S.E.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Propes v. Todd
79 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Worley v. Planters Cotton Oil Co.
178 S.E. 289 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
In re W. J. Marshall Co.
291 F. 268 (S.D. Georgia, 1923)
Citizens Trust Co. v. Butler
103 S.E. 852 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 267, 16 Ga. App. 309, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-e-tris-napier-co-gactapp-1915.