Bozikis v. Anestos

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bozikis v. Anestos

126 S.E. 555, 33 Ga. App. 422, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 804

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1925

Docket15624

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 555 (Bozikis v. Anestos) 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

Bozikis v. Anestos, 126 S.E. 555, 33 Ga. App. 422, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The vendor’s retention of personal property after an absolute sale to another is an indicium of a fraudulent sale. Perkins v. Patten, 10 Ga. 241; Smith v. McDonald, 25 Ga. 377; Willingham v. Smith, 48 Ga. 580.

2. The sale of personalty by a defendant pending an action against him is also an indicium of fraud. Colquitt v. Thomas, 8 Ca. 258; Barter v. Terrell, 54 Ga. 146.

3. Where personal property was sold on January 3 by a defendant in a pending suit on a note, and on January 24 a judgment in the suit was obtained against him, and on February 19 an execution thereon was levied upon the property in his possession, the inference is authorized that the property was sold pending litigation against him and that at the time of the sale he retained possession of the property; and where it could be inferred, from other evidence introduced, that the retention of possession by the defendant was not satisfactorily explained, the inference is authorized that the sale was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff as a creditor of the vendor, and that the claimant was a .party to the fraud, and that therefore the sale was void as against the creditor. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3224 (2), 4109.

4. Where, after the levy of the execution upon the property, the vendee interposed a claim, and upon the trial of the issue thus formed evidence as above was adduced, the jury was authorized to find the property subject.

5. It appearing that the property was worth from $500 to $800, an award of damages on account of delay, in the sum of $150, against the claimant, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not by this court be held as a matter of law excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The vendor’s retention of personal property after an absolute sale to another is an indicium of a fraudulent sale. Perkins v. Patten, 10 Ga. 241; Smith v. McDonald, 25 Ga. 377; Willingham v. Smith, 48 Ga. 580.

2. The sale of personalty by a defendant pending an action against him is also an indicium of fraud. Colquitt v. Thomas, 8 Ca. 258; Barter v. Terrell, 54 Ga. 146.

3. Where personal property was sold on January 3 by a defendant in a pending suit on a note, and on January 24 a judgment in the suit was obtained against him, and on February 19 an execution thereon was levied upon the property in his possession, the inference is authorized that the property was sold pending litigation against him and that at the time of the sale he retained possession of the property; and where it could be inferred, from other evidence introduced, that the retention of possession by the defendant was not satisfactorily explained, the inference is authorized that the sale was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff as a creditor of the vendor, and that the claimant was a .party to the fraud, and that therefore the sale was void as against the creditor. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3224 (2), 4109.

4. Where, after the levy of the execution upon the property, the vendee interposed a claim, and upon the trial of the issue thus formed evidence as above was adduced, the jury was authorized to find the property subject.

5. It appearing that the property was worth from $500 to $800, an award of damages on account of delay, in the sum of $150, against the claimant, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not by this court be held as a matter of law excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 555, 33 Ga. App. 422, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozikis-v-anestos-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack