Covington v. Rosenbusch

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Covington v. Rosenbusch

97 S.E. 462, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 768

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1918

Docket9629

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 462 (Covington v. Rosenbusch) 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

Covington v. Rosenbusch, 97 S.E. 462, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. “Where an employee, in good faith and for a valuable • consideration, sells, transfers, and assigns his title and right to possession of a stipulated amount of salary due him by his employer,. and thereafter’ collects the money thus transferred, he can not, as against a suit for the recovery of the money, avail himself of a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense. The instrument of transfer is an assignment of title. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. King, 137 Ga. 369 (73 S. E. 632). One who thus disposes of property without the authority of its owner, under the ruling in McIntyre v. Kavanaugh, 242 U. S. 138 (37 Sup. Ct. 38, 61 L. ed. 205), is'guilty of a wilful and malicious injury to property, within the meaning of the bankruptcy act, see. 17 (2), as amended by the act of February 5, 1903 (32 Stat. 798, U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 9601); and consequently his liability is hot released by a discharge in bankruptcy.” Covington v. Rosenbusch, 148 Ga. 459 (96 S. E. 78).

2. Any holding in Glasco v. Cooper, 17 Ga. App. 690 (87 S. E. 1095, or Stovall v. Coker, 18 Ga. App. 126 (88 S. E. 907), which may be contrary to this ruling^ is, on review, overruled.

3. Under the ruling stated above, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. “Where an employee, in good faith and for a valuable • consideration, sells, transfers, and assigns his title and right to possession of a stipulated amount of salary due him by his employer,. and thereafter’ collects the money thus transferred, he can not, as against a suit for the recovery of the money, avail himself of a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense. The instrument of transfer is an assignment of title. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. King, 137 Ga. 369 (73 S. E. 632). One who thus disposes of property without the authority of its owner, under the ruling in McIntyre v. Kavanaugh, 242 U. S. 138 (37 Sup. Ct. 38, 61 L. ed. 205), is'guilty of a wilful and malicious injury to property, within the meaning of the bankruptcy act, see. 17 (2), as amended by the act of February 5, 1903 (32 Stat. 798, U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 9601); and consequently his liability is hot released by a discharge in bankruptcy.” Covington v. Rosenbusch, 148 Ga. 459 (96 S. E. 78).

2. Any holding in Glasco v. Cooper, 17 Ga. App. 690 (87 S. E. 1095, or Stovall v. Coker, 18 Ga. App. 126 (88 S. E. 907), which may be contrary to this ruling^ is, on review, overruled.

3. Under the ruling stated above, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 462, 22 Ga. App. 799, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covington-v-rosenbusch-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack