Brantley v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brantley v. Hicks

171 S.E. 451, 177 Ga. 812, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 433

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 13, 1933·No. No. 9789·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Levy of a tax execution against property in the hands of an administrator for distribution, which execution according to the evidence is excessive, is void, and a sale thereunder will pass no title.

2. Under the facts of this case the court did not err in continuing in force the order restraining a sale of the property levied on. Civil Code, § 4000. This case differs in its facts from Harris Orchard Co. v. Tharpe, 177 Ga. 547, where the complainant was a third party whose remedy is provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 1159.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices conaw. G. G. Bidgood, for plaintiff in error. L. fj. Porter and B. G. Hichs, contra.

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

Hill, J.

1. Levy of a tax execution against property in the hands of an administrator for distribution, which execution according to the evidence is excessive, is void, and a sale thereunder will pass no title.

2. Under the facts of this case the court did not err in continuing in force the order restraining a sale of the property levied on. Civil Code, § 4000. This case differs in its facts from Harris Orchard Co. v. Tharpe, 177 Ga. 547, where the complainant was a third party whose remedy is provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 1159.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices conaw. G. G. Bidgood, for plaintiff in error. L. fj. Porter and B. G. Hichs, contra.

Brantley v. Hicks, 171 S.E. 451, 177 Ga. 812, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 433 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

171 S.E. 451 (Brantley v. Hicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related