Ehrlich & Co. v. King

34 Ga. App. 787
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 1, 1926·No. 16275·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Since a claimant of property levied upon, where no right, title, or interest whatsoever appears in the defendant in execution, is required, in order to sustain his claim, to show only some title or interest in the property superior to the right of the plaintiff to proceed with the execution, title in the claimant to a fractional interest in the property is sufficient to support a finding in his favor. See, in this connection, Wade v. Hamilton, 30 Ga. 450 (2); Deariso v. Lawrence, 3 Ga. App. 580 (2) (60 S. E. 330).

2. A claimant upon whom was the burden of proof successfully carried that burden, and a.verdict in his favor was properly directed, where it appeared from undisputed evidence that he was a minor and had been given permission by his father, the defendant in execution, to make for

John B. Wilson, for plaintiffs. Ha-rtsfield & Conger, contra.

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

Ehrlich & Co. v. King, 34 Ga. App. 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

34 Ga. App. 787 (Ehrlich & Co. v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henderson v. Flood
144 S.E.2d 76 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Cox v. Hargrove
52 S.E.2d 312 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Chattooga County Bank v. Selman
173 S.E. 465 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Pritchett v. Bagby
169 S.E. 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Scruggs v. Blackshear Manufacturing Co.
166 S.E. 249 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)