Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown

121 S.E. 516, 31 Ga. App. 570, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 60

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1924

Docket14379

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 516 (Collins v. Bank of Cobbtown) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 516, 31 Ga. App. 570, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-bank-of-cobbtown-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack