Futch v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Futch v. Taylor

105 S.E. 616, 26 Ga. App. 129, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 20

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1921

Docket11548

StatusPublished

This text of 105 S.E. 616 (Futch v. Taylor) 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

Futch v. Taylor, 105 S.E. 616, 26 Ga. App. 129, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 20 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a statutory bond required under the Civil Code (1910), § 6040, given for the delivery of personal property levied on at the time and place of sale in the event that an affidavit of illegality which has been filed to the execution shall be dismissed or withdrawn, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove what disposition was made of the affidavit of illegality, and the amount of the judgment upon which the execution issued. There being no evidence in this case to establish these facts, a verdict directed for the plaintiff was contrary to law. Civil Code (1910), § 6040; Doyal v. Johns, 90 Ga. 188 (15 S. E. 776).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a statutory bond required under the Civil Code (1910), § 6040, given for the delivery of personal property levied on at the time and place of sale in the event that an affidavit of illegality which has been filed to the execution shall be dismissed or withdrawn, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove what disposition was made of the affidavit of illegality, and the amount of the judgment upon which the execution issued. There being no evidence in this case to establish these facts, a verdict directed for the plaintiff was contrary to law. Civil Code (1910), § 6040; Doyal v. Johns, 90 Ga. 188 (15 S. E. 776).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 616, 26 Ga. App. 129, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futch-v-taylor-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack