Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough

87 S.E. 720, 17 Ga. App. 483, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 720

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1916

Docket6302

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 720 (Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough) 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

Hartshorn v. Bank of Gough, 87 S.E. 720, 17 Ga. App. 483, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

This case was before this court on a previous occasion (15 Ga. App. 167, 82 S. E. 805). When the case went back to the lower court for trial, the fi. fa. was duly amended so as to be directed to the sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro and his lawful deputies. The levying officer amended his levy by striking the words “Special deputy sheriff, Burke county,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “Deputy sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro.” The defendant then traversed the fact that the levying officer was a deputy sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro. The court heard evidence and found against the traverse. The evidence on this trial of the case was entirely different from what it was on the former trial. While the evidence was equivocal and [484]*484conflicting, still it was legally sufficient to show that the officer was a de-facto deputy sheriff of the county, and of the city court, and that he was not a constable of the justice’s court.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, J., concurs dubitante.

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

Russell, C. J.

This case was before this court on a previous occasion (15 Ga. App. 167, 82 S. E. 805). When the case went back to the lower court for trial, the fi. fa. was duly amended so as to be directed to the sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro and his lawful deputies. The levying officer amended his levy by striking the words “Special deputy sheriff, Burke county,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “Deputy sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro.” The defendant then traversed the fact that the levying officer was a deputy sheriff of the city court of Waynesboro. The court heard evidence and found against the traverse. The evidence on this trial of the case was entirely different from what it was on the former trial. While the evidence was equivocal and [484]*484conflicting, still it was legally sufficient to show that the officer was a de-facto deputy sheriff of the county, and of the city court, and that he was not a constable of the justice’s court.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, J., concurs dubitante.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 720, 17 Ga. App. 483, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartshorn-v-bank-of-gough-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack