Commercial Credit Co. v. Grant

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Commercial Credit Co. v. Grant

125 S.E. 382, 33 Ga. App. 31, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 688

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1924

Docket15740

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E. 382 (Commercial Credit Co. v. Grant) 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

Commercial Credit Co. v. Grant, 125 S.E. 382, 33 Ga. App. 31, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 688 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworti-i, J.

A Ford car was sold by the sheriff under a judgment rendered in condemnation proceedings. The Commercial Credit Company, by petition for a rule against the sheriff, claimed the proceeds of the sale, “by reason of the conditional contract of sale which defendant holds as transferee.” The bill of exceptions recites that “when said case was called for trial both parties announced ready for trial and agreed for the court to try the case without a jury. The movant, Commercial Credit Company, through and’by its attorney, tendered in evidence a certain contract, note [32]*32attached thereto, together with certain entries of transfer on the backs of said papers, which contract retained the title to a certain automobile, the sale of which was the basis of the said rule, which documents were objected to by respondent’s attorney on the grounds that they were not attested by or probated by a notary public and recorded, and that the execution of said contract, note and transfers had not been proved, and the court sustained the objections and refused to admit the said documents in evidence, and, there being no other or further evidence offered, passed an order deciding said issue in favor of the respondent?”

There ivas no error in the ruling of the court. Plaintiff’s case was based upon the note and contract and the transfer thereof. These writings Avere not merely incidentally involved, but Avere necessary to make out the plaintiff’s ease. There were subscribing witnesses to the contract, and these were not called. Indeed, no effort whatever was made to prove the execution of any of the papers offered by the plaintiff, and they were not admissible in evidence without proof of their execution as required by law. Civil Code (1910), § 5833; Barron v. Walker, 80 Ga. 121 (2), 123 (2) (7 S. E. 272); Baker v. Massengale, 83 Ga. 137 (1), 142 (1) (10 S. E. 347); Thornton v. Martin, 116 Ga. 115 (5) (42 S. E. 348); Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 130 Ga. 71 (3) (60 S. E. 262).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworti-i, J.

A Ford car was sold by the sheriff under a judgment rendered in condemnation proceedings. The Commercial Credit Company, by petition for a rule against the sheriff, claimed the proceeds of the sale, “by reason of the conditional contract of sale which defendant holds as transferee.” The bill of exceptions recites that “when said case was called for trial both parties announced ready for trial and agreed for the court to try the case without a jury. The movant, Commercial Credit Company, through and’by its attorney, tendered in evidence a certain contract, note [32]*32attached thereto, together with certain entries of transfer on the backs of said papers, which contract retained the title to a certain automobile, the sale of which was the basis of the said rule, which documents were objected to by respondent’s attorney on the grounds that they were not attested by or probated by a notary public and recorded, and that the execution of said contract, note and transfers had not been proved, and the court sustained the objections and refused to admit the said documents in evidence, and, there being no other or further evidence offered, passed an order deciding said issue in favor of the respondent?”

There ivas no error in the ruling of the court. Plaintiff’s case was based upon the note and contract and the transfer thereof. These writings Avere not merely incidentally involved, but Avere necessary to make out the plaintiff’s ease. There were subscribing witnesses to the contract, and these were not called. Indeed, no effort whatever was made to prove the execution of any of the papers offered by the plaintiff, and they were not admissible in evidence without proof of their execution as required by law. Civil Code (1910), § 5833; Barron v. Walker, 80 Ga. 121 (2), 123 (2) (7 S. E. 272); Baker v. Massengale, 83 Ga. 137 (1), 142 (1) (10 S. E. 347); Thornton v. Martin, 116 Ga. 115 (5) (42 S. E. 348); Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 130 Ga. 71 (3) (60 S. E. 262).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 382, 33 Ga. App. 31, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-credit-co-v-grant-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack