Henry & Hutchinson Inc. v. V. M. C. Products, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henry & Hutchinson Inc. v. V. M. C. Products, Inc.

66 S.E.2d 775, 84 Ga. App. 613, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 740

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 12, 1951

Docket33614

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 S.E.2d 775 (Henry & Hutchinson Inc. v. V. M. C. Products, Inc.) 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

Henry & Hutchinson Inc. v. V. M. C. Products, Inc., 66 S.E.2d 775, 84 Ga. App. 613, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. The record showing nothing to the contrary, presumptively the sale of the property to the defendant under the execution was properly and legally conducted. Thompson v. Selcer, 142 Ga. 809(2) (83 S. E. 965). The evidence shows that the property sold at public outcry for a sum less than the amount of the execution, and under such circumstances, a finding that the levy was not excessive was demanded.

2. Under the foregoing ruling, if the admission in evidence, over the plaintiff’s objection, of testimony of the plaintiff’s witness, on cross-examination, as to the lump sum paid by the plaintiff when it purchased the machinery levied upon with several other pieces of machinery was erroneous, such error was harmless, and the finding made in favor of the defendant as to the No. 12 Van Norman Milling Machine was demanded under evidence otherwise legally admitted.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Felton, J., concur. Phillips, Johnson & Williams, for plaintiff. Bichard T. Nesbitt, Dunaway, Howard & Embry, for defendant.

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