Hood v. Bibb Brokerage Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hood v. Bibb Brokerage Co.

160 S.E. 683, 44 Ga. App. 31, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 589

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1931

Docket20243

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 S.E. 683 (Hood v. Bibb Brokerage Co.) 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

Hood v. Bibb Brokerage Co., 160 S.E. 683, 44 Ga. App. 31, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The evidence adduced on the trial of this case, which was a suit to recover for an alleged conversion by the defendant after collecting from his creditor a portion of his wages which he had, under a partial assignment, assigned to the plaintiff, being sufficient to authorize the inference that when making the assignment he received from the plaintiff a sum of money in payment therefor, that the assignment was a bona fide sale of a portion of earned wages and not part of a transaction by which the defendant obtained a usurious loan from the plaintiff, and it appearing, from the evidence, that the plaintiff had obtained the license required by law of money lenders or buyers of salaries or wages, the verdict and judgment against the defendant’s plea of bankruptcy and for the plaintiff in the amount sued for were, under the rulings of this court in Hubbard v. Bibb Brokerage Co., 44 Ga. App. 1 (169 S. E. 639), authorized, and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the defendant’s petition for certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. E. F. Qoodrum, J. L. B. Boyd, for plaintiff in error. Nottingham & Nottingham, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

The evidence adduced on the trial of this case, which was a suit to recover for an alleged conversion by the defendant after collecting from his creditor a portion of his wages which he had, under a partial assignment, assigned to the plaintiff, being sufficient to authorize the inference that when making the assignment he received from the plaintiff a sum of money in payment therefor, that the assignment was a bona fide sale of a portion of earned wages and not part of a transaction by which the defendant obtained a usurious loan from the plaintiff, and it appearing, from the evidence, that the plaintiff had obtained the license required by law of money lenders or buyers of salaries or wages, the verdict and judgment against the defendant’s plea of bankruptcy and for the plaintiff in the amount sued for were, under the rulings of this court in Hubbard v. Bibb Brokerage Co., 44 Ga. App. 1 (169 S. E. 639), authorized, and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the defendant’s petition for certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. E. F. Qoodrum, J. L. B. Boyd, for plaintiff in error. Nottingham & Nottingham, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E. 683, 44 Ga. App. 31, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-bibb-brokerage-co-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack