Baxter v. Hinesville Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Baxter v. Hinesville Bank

167 S.E. 117, 46 Ga. App. 152, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 83

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 8, 1932

Docket22354

StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E. 117 (Baxter v. Hinesville 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

Baxter v. Hinesville Bank, 167 S.E. 117, 46 Ga. App. 152, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

In the instant claim case, possession of the [153]*153automobile levied upon was admitted to have been iu the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy. While the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant son was sufficient to show that'he had originally purchased the property more than five years previous to the levy, and while the defendant in fi. fa. testified that the property did not belong to him, but belonged to the claimant, there was testimony for the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant in fi. fa. had previously to the levy treated the property as his own, and had conveyed it to a corporation organized by himself, in part payment of capital stock of the corporation, issued to him, and that upon the dissolution of the corporation he, the defendant in fi. fa., had been allowed to withdraw the property. The claimant did not testify. Since the testimony of the defendant in fi. fa. was discredited by the proof of facts contradictory to those to which he testified, the jury were authorized to disregard his testimony; and since it can not be said as a matter of law that merely showing that he had originally purchased the property more than five years before the levy was sufficient, as a matter of law, to carry the burden resting upon the claimant, it can not be said, that the verdict finding the property subject was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

In the instant claim case, possession of the [153]*153automobile levied upon was admitted to have been iu the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy. While the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant son was sufficient to show that'he had originally purchased the property more than five years previous to the levy, and while the defendant in fi. fa. testified that the property did not belong to him, but belonged to the claimant, there was testimony for the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant in fi. fa. had previously to the levy treated the property as his own, and had conveyed it to a corporation organized by himself, in part payment of capital stock of the corporation, issued to him, and that upon the dissolution of the corporation he, the defendant in fi. fa., had been allowed to withdraw the property. The claimant did not testify. Since the testimony of the defendant in fi. fa. was discredited by the proof of facts contradictory to those to which he testified, the jury were authorized to disregard his testimony; and since it can not be said as a matter of law that merely showing that he had originally purchased the property more than five years before the levy was sufficient, as a matter of law, to carry the burden resting upon the claimant, it can not be said, that the verdict finding the property subject was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 117, 46 Ga. App. 152, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxter-v-hinesville-bank-gactapp-1932.