Howell v. Booth

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howell v. Booth

145 S.E. 910, 39 Ga. App. 41, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 489

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1928

Docket18809

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E. 910 (Howell v. Booth) 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

Howell v. Booth, 145 S.E. 910, 39 Ga. App. 41, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. This court will not control the discretion of a trial judge in granting a first new trial, unless it should appear that the verdict was demanded by the law and the facts. Civil Code (1910), § 6204. .

2. In the instant claim case, a judgment was rendered finding the property not subject, and a new trial was granted to the plaintiff. While the evidence of either the plaintiff or the claimant is not very definite as to the identification of the property claimed and of that levied upon, the proof indicates that the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession of the property at the time of the levy, thus placing the burden of proof upon the claimant; and the evidence would authorize the inference that at least a portion of the property levied upon was purchased by the defendant in fi. fa. after the issuance and recordation of the execution. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below granting a first new trial to the plaintiff in fi. fa. will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. This court will not control the discretion of a trial judge in granting a first new trial, unless it should appear that the verdict was demanded by the law and the facts. Civil Code (1910), § 6204. .

2. In the instant claim case, a judgment was rendered finding the property not subject, and a new trial was granted to the plaintiff. While the evidence of either the plaintiff or the claimant is not very definite as to the identification of the property claimed and of that levied upon, the proof indicates that the defendant in fi. fa. was in possession of the property at the time of the levy, thus placing the burden of proof upon the claimant; and the evidence would authorize the inference that at least a portion of the property levied upon was purchased by the defendant in fi. fa. after the issuance and recordation of the execution. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below granting a first new trial to the plaintiff in fi. fa. will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 910, 39 Ga. App. 41, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-booth-gactapp-1928.