Hill v. Fleming

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hill v. Fleming

39 Ga. 662

DecidedDecember 15, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Ga. 662 (Hill v. Fleming) 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

Hill v. Fleming, 39 Ga. 662 (Ga. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Brown, C. J.

1. We are aware of no statute or rule of Court which authorized the Judge to institute such a proceeding and pass such an order, as is complained of in this case. It appears by the evidence that the assignee in bankruptcy found the property, which is the subject of this litigation, in possession of the bankrupt and took possession of it as he did the other property of the bankrupt. He, therefore, became possessed of the property in the regular course off his official duties, and could not be deprived of it by this very summary and irregular proceeding.

2. If the sheriff was entitled to the possession of the property, and, from the evidence before us, we incline to the opinion that he was, he had his remedy by action of trover, [664]*664or he might have instituted the proper proceeding in the Bankrupt Court, to which the assignee was amenable, which would have corrected promptly any error or excess of its officer.

Let the judgment be reversed.

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

Brown, C. J.

1. We are aware of no statute or rule of Court which authorized the Judge to institute such a proceeding and pass such an order, as is complained of in this case. It appears by the evidence that the assignee in bankruptcy found the property, which is the subject of this litigation, in possession of the bankrupt and took possession of it as he did the other property of the bankrupt. He, therefore, became possessed of the property in the regular course off his official duties, and could not be deprived of it by this very summary and irregular proceeding.

2. If the sheriff was entitled to the possession of the property, and, from the evidence before us, we incline to the opinion that he was, he had his remedy by action of trover, [664]*664or he might have instituted the proper proceeding in the Bankrupt Court, to which the assignee was amenable, which would have corrected promptly any error or excess of its officer.

Let the judgment be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ga. 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-fleming-ga-1869.