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

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 25, 1913·No. 5066·Published

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.

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

Pincite

79 S.E. 1134 (Clark v. Georgia Fertilizer Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related