Frick Co. v. Taylor

21 S.E. 713, 94 Ga. 683, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 269
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 14, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 21 S.E. 713 (Frick Co. v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frick Co. v. Taylor, 21 S.E. 713, 94 Ga. 683, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 269 (Ga. 1894).

Opinion

A mortgage fi. fa. against G. A. Taylor, covering lot 194 and the north half of lot 191 in the 2d district of Macon county, was levied on said land. John Taylor interposed a claim to the north half of lot 191 and 50 acres of the north side of lot 194. The property was found not subject, and plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The main issue was as to fraud on the part of O. A. Taylor in procuring from John Taylor a deed to the land in question, before the execution of the mortgage made by him to plaintiff to secure a pre-existing debt; claimant testifying that the deed was obtained on the fraudulent representation of O. A. Taylor that it was a deed to some cows which claimant delivered to him at the time, he promising that if claimant would make the deed and send the cows to him, he would protect claimant against some debts claimed against him which he did not owe; no further consideration being paid or promised. To this testimony plaintiff’objected, and contended that in the absence of a plea of fraud the property must be found subject. For the same reason error was assigned on an instruction by the court, that [685]*685if the title was obtained from claimant by fraud, no title could pass; and that plaintiff would not be protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice, where its mortgage was taken to secure a pre-existing debt. Further error, was assigned on the rejection from evidence of the record of the suit of Malsby & Avery v. John Taylor and Bob Tooke, upon a note promising to pay four bales of cotton, signed by them and payable to C. A. Taylor or hearer, “given for rent of land on Buck creek”; in which suit there was personal service on the defendants and judgment by the court against them.

J. A. Ansley and Edwards & Greer, for plaintiff. J. W. Haygood and Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for claimant.

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

Related

Smith v. Francis
144 S.E.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Lance v. Crane
104 S.E.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Bateman v. Patterson
92 S.E.2d 8 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Cox v. Hargrove
52 S.E.2d 312 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Auld v. Schmelz
39 S.E.2d 39 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Grant v. Hart
14 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Simpson Grocery Co. v. Knight
96 S.E. 872 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Askew v. Amos
95 S.E. 5 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Tankersley
65 S.E. 367 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 S.E. 713, 94 Ga. 683, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frick-co-v-taylor-ga-1894.