Campbell v. Hutcheson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Campbell v. Hutcheson

97 S.E. 555, 23 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 70

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 23, 1918

Docket9833

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 555 (Campbell v. Hutcheson) 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

Campbell v. Hutcheson, 97 S.E. 555, 23 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. Failure to file a claim, under the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the United States, § 3460 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 6362), to property seized by the collector of internal revenue for a violation of the revenue laws will not estop the true owner from asserting his title by an action of trover brought against the purchaser of the property at a sale held by the collector of .internal revenue; provided he has done nothing to mislead the purchaser as to his relation to the property and the title. McLennan v. Graham, 106 Ga. 211 (32 S. E. 118), and cases there cited; Lawless v. Orr, 122 Ga. 276 (50 S. E. 85).

(a) In the instant case the evidence authorized a finding by the. judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, exercising the functions of both judge and jury, that the owner of the property was not present when it was sold by the collector of internal revenue, and that he had done nothing, before or at the sale, to mislead the purchaser as to the owner’s true relation to the property and the title.

2, The constitutional question argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error was not raised in the petition for certiorari, and accordingly the case will not be transferred to the Supreme Court.

3. It does not appear that the judge of the superior, court erred' in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed,.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. Failure to file a claim, under the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the United States, § 3460 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 6362), to property seized by the collector of internal revenue for a violation of the revenue laws will not estop the true owner from asserting his title by an action of trover brought against the purchaser of the property at a sale held by the collector of .internal revenue; provided he has done nothing to mislead the purchaser as to his relation to the property and the title. McLennan v. Graham, 106 Ga. 211 (32 S. E. 118), and cases there cited; Lawless v. Orr, 122 Ga. 276 (50 S. E. 85).

(a) In the instant case the evidence authorized a finding by the. judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, exercising the functions of both judge and jury, that the owner of the property was not present when it was sold by the collector of internal revenue, and that he had done nothing, before or at the sale, to mislead the purchaser as to the owner’s true relation to the property and the title.

2, The constitutional question argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error was not raised in the petition for certiorari, and accordingly the case will not be transferred to the Supreme Court.

3. It does not appear that the judge of the superior, court erred' in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed,.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 555, 23 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-hutcheson-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack