Citizens Bank v. Popkin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citizens Bank v. Popkin

136 S.E. 102, 36 Ga. App. 223, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 887

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1926

Docket17215

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 102 (Citizens Bank v. Popkin) 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

Citizens Bank v. Popkin, 136 S.E. 102, 36 Ga. App. 223, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 887 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being the trial of an issue formed upon a claim to personal property levied upon under a mortgage foreclosure, in which the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, and it appearing, from the evidence, that the property claimed had been bought by the claimant from the defendant in execution, the mortgagor, but the only evidence tending to establish the identity of that property with the property described in the mortgage being certain circumstances sworn to by. a witness, from which the witness inferred that the property levied on and claimed was the identical property covered by the mortgage, the [224]*224evidence was insufficient to establish conclusively, as a matter of law, that the property levied on was covered by the mortgage; and a verdict having been found for the plaintiff, this, the first grant of a new trial to the defendant, will be affirmed.

Decided December 20, 1926. Kirkland & Kirkland, for plaintiff. Kimbrough & Brown, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenfoins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being the trial of an issue formed upon a claim to personal property levied upon under a mortgage foreclosure, in which the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, and it appearing, from the evidence, that the property claimed had been bought by the claimant from the defendant in execution, the mortgagor, but the only evidence tending to establish the identity of that property with the property described in the mortgage being certain circumstances sworn to by. a witness, from which the witness inferred that the property levied on and claimed was the identical property covered by the mortgage, the [224]*224evidence was insufficient to establish conclusively, as a matter of law, that the property levied on was covered by the mortgage; and a verdict having been found for the plaintiff, this, the first grant of a new trial to the defendant, will be affirmed.

Decided December 20, 1926. Kirkland & Kirkland, for plaintiff. Kimbrough & Brown, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenfoins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 102, 36 Ga. App. 223, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-bank-v-popkin-gactapp-1926.