Bridges v. Melton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bridges v. Melton

129 S.E. 913, 34 Ga. App. 480, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 329

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 19, 1925

Docket16492

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 913 (Bridges v. Melton) 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

Bridges v. Melton, 129 S.E. 913, 34 Ga. App. 480, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 329 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Where an affidavit of illegality to the foreclosure of a mortgage on personalty was not accompanied either by a replevy bond or by an affidavit in forma pauperis as prescribed by the Civil Code, § 3301, the affidavit so interposed was a nullity. Brantley v. Baker, 75 Ga. 676 (1); Shannon v. Vincent, 76 Ga. 837; Glass v. Austin, 28 Ga. App. 311 (111 S. E. 84); Dawson v. Planters Bank, 31 Ga. App. 530 (121 S. E. 242).

2. Rule 29 of the superior courts, as contained in the Civil Code (1910), § 6288, providing that no second affidavit of illegality shall be received for causes which existed and were known, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence might have been known, at the filing of the first, has no application where the first affidavit' of illegality was void. Since in the present case the so-ealled “first” affidavit was fatally defective because of the failure of the affiant to give bond or make affidavit as to his inability to do so, as required by statute, and was for that reason voluntarily dismissed by the defendant in fi. fa., it was not to be counted, and one subsequently filed was not to be classed as a second affidavit, under the rule of the court just stated. Compare Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 270 (2); Crowley v. Freeman, 9 Ga. App. 1 (1) (70 S. E. 349) ; Jordan v. Jenkins, 17 Ga. App. 58 (2 c) (86 S. E. 278). The rule might be otherwise if the parties had acted on the theory that the so-called first affidavit was valid and facts had arisen whereby the defendant should be estopped from asserting that it was void.

3. Applying the above rulings the court erred in dismissing the affidavit of illegality last filed.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. Where an affidavit of illegality to the foreclosure of a mortgage on personalty was not accompanied either by a replevy bond or by an affidavit in forma pauperis as prescribed by the Civil Code, § 3301, the affidavit so interposed was a nullity. Brantley v. Baker, 75 Ga. 676 (1); Shannon v. Vincent, 76 Ga. 837; Glass v. Austin, 28 Ga. App. 311 (111 S. E. 84); Dawson v. Planters Bank, 31 Ga. App. 530 (121 S. E. 242).

2. Rule 29 of the superior courts, as contained in the Civil Code (1910), § 6288, providing that no second affidavit of illegality shall be received for causes which existed and were known, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence might have been known, at the filing of the first, has no application where the first affidavit' of illegality was void. Since in the present case the so-ealled “first” affidavit was fatally defective because of the failure of the affiant to give bond or make affidavit as to his inability to do so, as required by statute, and was for that reason voluntarily dismissed by the defendant in fi. fa., it was not to be counted, and one subsequently filed was not to be classed as a second affidavit, under the rule of the court just stated. Compare Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 270 (2); Crowley v. Freeman, 9 Ga. App. 1 (1) (70 S. E. 349) ; Jordan v. Jenkins, 17 Ga. App. 58 (2 c) (86 S. E. 278). The rule might be otherwise if the parties had acted on the theory that the so-called first affidavit was valid and facts had arisen whereby the defendant should be estopped from asserting that it was void.

3. Applying the above rulings the court erred in dismissing the affidavit of illegality last filed.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 913, 34 Ga. App. 480, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-melton-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack