Cooper v. King

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cooper v. King

64 S.E. 288, 6 Ga. App. 76, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 185

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1909

Docket1508

StatusPublished

This text of 64 S.E. 288 (Cooper v. King) 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

Cooper v. King, 64 S.E. 288, 6 Ga. App. 76, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 185 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

If King’s rent was paid either to him or to Davis & Company, the agents with whom he had placed the note for collection, before the distress warrant was issued, no portion of the proceeds from the property sold should have been appropriated to the distress warrant. If this payment was made after the distress warrant was sued out, then King would have been entitled to receive on his distress warrant only the cost which had accrued on it up to the time of payment of the note. Payment to Davis & Company was equivalent to payment to the plaintiff himself. Civil Code, § 3T1T. The court therefore erred in directing that any. portion of the proceeds be appropriated to the principal sum due on the distress warrant. Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

If King’s rent was paid either to him or to Davis & Company, the agents with whom he had placed the note for collection, before the distress warrant was issued, no portion of the proceeds from the property sold should have been appropriated to the distress warrant. If this payment was made after the distress warrant was sued out, then King would have been entitled to receive on his distress warrant only the cost which had accrued on it up to the time of payment of the note. Payment to Davis & Company was equivalent to payment to the plaintiff himself. Civil Code, § 3T1T. The court therefore erred in directing that any. portion of the proceeds be appropriated to the principal sum due on the distress warrant. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 288, 6 Ga. App. 76, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-king-gactapp-1909.