Glover v. Newsome

65 S.E. 64, 132 Ga. 796, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 408
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 24, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 64 (Glover v. Newsome) 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
Glover v. Newsome, 65 S.E. 64, 132 Ga. 796, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 408 (Ga. 1909).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Where an execution was transferred and levied on property of the defendant, and he interposed1 an affidavit of illegality, alleging, that, for the purpose of defrauding the original plaintiff and other creditors, he had colluded with the subsequent transferees, and had [797]*797conveyed, to them certain property under pretext of a sale which was in fact only colorable, and that subsequently his coadjutors in the fraud had paid to the plaintiff in fi. fa. the amount due thereon and taken a transfer of it and caused it to be levied on other property of the defendant, and that by reason of these facts .he claimed that the debt, was discharged, and that the transferees should not’be allowed to collect, the amounts due on the fi. fa. at the time of its transfer, such an affidavit of illegality was properly stricken on demurrer.

Submitted January 21, Decided June 24, 1909. Illegality. Before Judge Worley. Glascock superior court. April 14, 1908. Isaac 8. Peebles Jr., for plaintiff in error. J. C. Newsome and B. F. Walker, contra.

[a) One who transfers his property for the purpose* of defrauding his creditors must abide the results of his own conduct, and can not in effect enforce the covinous contract with his grantee by claiming to have the property so conveyed applied for his benefit in discharge of a debt of the grantor subsequently transferred by a third person to such grantees.

(S) Where a person other than the defendant pays to the plaintiffs in fi. fa. the amount due thereon and takes a transfer thereof, this does not operate as a payment and discharge of the debt of the defendant or the lien against his property. .

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Haffner v. Davis
725 S.E.2d 286 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2012)
Brasher v. Tanner
353 S.E.2d 478 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1987)
Edingburg v. Citizens & Southern Bank of Macon, Inc.
261 S.E.2d 617 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Curtis v. Sharp
56 S.E.2d 118 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Blue Ridge Apartment Co. v. Telfair Stockton & Co.
54 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Andrews v. Moss
129 S.E. 62 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Calhoun v. Ryals
124 S.E. 867 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Porter v. Forsyth
106 S.E. 746 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Stroud v. Moore
104 S.E. 633 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Powell & Kendall v. Lawson
77 S.E. 183 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.E. 64, 132 Ga. 796, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-newsome-ga-1909.