Clark v. Georgia Fertilizer Works

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. Georgia Fertilizer Works

79 S.E. 1134, 13 Ga. App. 787, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 362

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

Docket5066

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 1134 (Clark v. Georgia Fertilizer Works) 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

Clark v. Georgia Fertilizer Works, 79 S.E. 1134, 13 Ga. App. 787, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

The description in the mortgage fi. fa. did not follow the mortgage, nor did the levy follow the fi. fa. It appears, from the evidence, that in the militia district in which the mortgaged crops were located the mortgagor had two farms. There was no parol evidence locating the property described in the mortgage as “Clark’s place,” nor any testimony identifying the property described in the levy with that which had been mortgaged. Consequently the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Citations by counsel: Broach v. O’Neal, 94 Ga. 475; Stephens v. Tucker, 55 Ga. 543; Krine v. Tifts, 65 Ga. 644.

Davis & Sturgis, for plaintiff in error Evans é Barrett, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

The description in the mortgage fi. fa. did not follow the mortgage, nor did the levy follow the fi. fa. It appears, from the evidence, that in the militia district in which the mortgaged crops were located the mortgagor had two farms. There was no parol evidence locating the property described in the mortgage as “Clark’s place,” nor any testimony identifying the property described in the levy with that which had been mortgaged. Consequently the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Citations by counsel: Broach v. O’Neal, 94 Ga. 475; Stephens v. Tucker, 55 Ga. 543; Krine v. Tifts, 65 Ga. 644.

Davis & Sturgis, for plaintiff in error Evans é Barrett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 1134, 13 Ga. App. 787, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-georgia-fertilizer-works-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack