Davis Construction Co. v. Albany Produce Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis Construction Co. v. Albany Produce Co.

119 S.E. 459, 31 Ga. App. 72, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 729

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1923

Docket14309

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 S.E. 459 (Davis Construction Co. v. Albany Produce Co.) 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

Davis Construction Co. v. Albany Produce Co., 119 S.E. 459, 31 Ga. App. 72, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Where the sole defect in a chattel mortgage fi. fa. is the fact that the mortgage was foreclosed in the wrong county, advantage thereof can be taken by a claimant of the property levied upon only by objecting to the admission of the fi. fa. in evidence, or by a motion to dismiss the levy. Where the claimant does neither, and upon the trial of the claim case a verdict is directed for the plaintiff in fi. fa. upon evidence showing, without dispute, that the property is subject to the lien of the mortgage, the verdict should not be set aside merely because of the defect in the fi. fa. Bosworth v. Clark, 62 Ga. 287 (1); Morton v. Gahona, 70 Ga. 569 (1); Dixon v. Williams, 82 Ga. 105 (1) (9 S. E. 468); Gazan v. Royce, 78 Ga. 512 (1) (3 S. E. 753); Osborne v. Rice, 107 Ga. 281 (2) (33 S. E. 54); Morrison v. McRae, 111 Ga. 847 (36 S. E. 462); Carreker v. Thornton, 1 Ga. App. 508, 511 (57 S. E. 988); Rossiter Co. v. Carrollton Electric Light Co., 5 Ga. App. 393 (1) (63 S. E. 233). The claimant’s motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

Where the sole defect in a chattel mortgage fi. fa. is the fact that the mortgage was foreclosed in the wrong county, advantage thereof can be taken by a claimant of the property levied upon only by objecting to the admission of the fi. fa. in evidence, or by a motion to dismiss the levy. Where the claimant does neither, and upon the trial of the claim case a verdict is directed for the plaintiff in fi. fa. upon evidence showing, without dispute, that the property is subject to the lien of the mortgage, the verdict should not be set aside merely because of the defect in the fi. fa. Bosworth v. Clark, 62 Ga. 287 (1); Morton v. Gahona, 70 Ga. 569 (1); Dixon v. Williams, 82 Ga. 105 (1) (9 S. E. 468); Gazan v. Royce, 78 Ga. 512 (1) (3 S. E. 753); Osborne v. Rice, 107 Ga. 281 (2) (33 S. E. 54); Morrison v. McRae, 111 Ga. 847 (36 S. E. 462); Carreker v. Thornton, 1 Ga. App. 508, 511 (57 S. E. 988); Rossiter Co. v. Carrollton Electric Light Co., 5 Ga. App. 393 (1) (63 S. E. 233). The claimant’s motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 459, 31 Ga. App. 72, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-construction-co-v-albany-produce-co-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack