Hammond v. King

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hammond v. King

187 S.E. 413, 53 Ga. App. 877, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 416

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1936

Docket25142

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 413 (Hammond v. King) 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

Hammond v. King, 187 S.E. 413, 53 Ga. App. 877, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A judgment for the plaintiff in an action for trover, although it is a money judgment and not a judgment for the property, is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Berry v. Jackson, 115 Ga. 196 (41 S. E. 698, 90 Am. St. R. 102) ; Citizens Bank v. Mullis, 161 Ga. 371 (131 S. E. 44); Lester v. Southern Security Co., 168 Ga. 307 (147 S. E. 529) ; Van Pelt v. Family Loan Society, 179 Ga. 787 (177 S. E. 595); Barnes v. Moseley, 41 Ga. App. 713 (154 S. E. 388). The judgment is not a liability which, as provided in section 17 of the bankruptcy act, is dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. See Covington v. Rosenbusch, 148 Ga. 459 (97 S. E. 78); Swift v. Bullard, 3 Fed. (2d) 814 (3). It is therefore no defense to the enforcement of a money judgment in an action of trover against the defendant, that the conversion was a “merely technical” conversion. Anything to the contrary in Walker Brothers Co. v. Capital City Grocery Co., 28 Ga. App. 531 (112 S. E. 157), is superseded by the authority of the Supreme Court in the eases above cited. This is not in conflict with Davis v. Ætna Acceptance Co., 293 U. S. 328 (55 Sup. Ct. 151, 79 L. ed. 393), in view of the peculiar facts of that case.

2. The judge of the municipal court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion- to stay the execution of the judgment and the garnishment proceedings issued thereon, and the appellate division of that court did not err in affirming the judgment of the judge in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment afSvrmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A judgment for the plaintiff in an action for trover, although it is a money judgment and not a judgment for the property, is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Berry v. Jackson, 115 Ga. 196 (41 S. E. 698, 90 Am. St. R. 102) ; Citizens Bank v. Mullis, 161 Ga. 371 (131 S. E. 44); Lester v. Southern Security Co., 168 Ga. 307 (147 S. E. 529) ; Van Pelt v. Family Loan Society, 179 Ga. 787 (177 S. E. 595); Barnes v. Moseley, 41 Ga. App. 713 (154 S. E. 388). The judgment is not a liability which, as provided in section 17 of the bankruptcy act, is dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. See Covington v. Rosenbusch, 148 Ga. 459 (97 S. E. 78); Swift v. Bullard, 3 Fed. (2d) 814 (3). It is therefore no defense to the enforcement of a money judgment in an action of trover against the defendant, that the conversion was a “merely technical” conversion. Anything to the contrary in Walker Brothers Co. v. Capital City Grocery Co., 28 Ga. App. 531 (112 S. E. 157), is superseded by the authority of the Supreme Court in the eases above cited. This is not in conflict with Davis v. Ætna Acceptance Co., 293 U. S. 328 (55 Sup. Ct. 151, 79 L. ed. 393), in view of the peculiar facts of that case.

2. The judge of the municipal court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion- to stay the execution of the judgment and the garnishment proceedings issued thereon, and the appellate division of that court did not err in affirming the judgment of the judge in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment afSvrmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 413, 53 Ga. App. 877, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-king-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack