Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown

121 S.E. 516, 31 Ga. App. 570, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 60
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 8, 1924·No. 14379·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The description of the property in the short homestead introduced by the defendant in fi. fa. in support of his claim that the property was exempt from levy under a pony homestead issued to him as a head of a family, being “one farm horse or mule, one one-horse cart, common tools of trade for self, farming tools,” is insufficient for the purpose of identification, and the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa. and causing judgment to be entered up ordering the fi. fa. to proceed against the property levied on. Kendall v. Parker, 146 Ga. 260 (91 S. E. 31).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Kirkland & Kirkland, for plaintiff in error. Anderson & Trapnell, contra.

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

Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown, 121 S.E. 516, 31 Ga. App. 570, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 60 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

121 S.E. 516 (Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Worley v. Arnold
41 S.E.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Clark v. Prince
144 S.E. 40 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)