Jowers v. High Point Furniture Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jowers v. High Point Furniture Co.

73 S.E. 415, 10 Ga. App. 297, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 471

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1912

Docket3419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 415 (Jowers v. High Point Furniture 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

Jowers v. High Point Furniture Co., 73 S.E. 415, 10 Ga. App. 297, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 471 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

This is a claim case. The plaintiff in fi. fa. attacked the validity of a sale of the property in dispute by the defendant in fi. fa. to the claimant. The time of the creation of the plaintiff’s debt does not appear. If it came into existence after the time of the sale, the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor must be reversed, because the charge of the court in certain particulars complained of was contrary to the principle stated in the first headnote above. If it was pre-existing at the time of the sale, the court should not have given the following instruction: “ If you should find that T. M. Parsons [the defendant in fi. fa.] ever owned the personal property levied on, and if you find that he afterwards sold it, but he remained in possession of the property, and the plaintiff in fi. fa. had no actual notice of the sale, but relied upon Parsons’ possession, then, if you find these facts to exist, you would be authorized to find the property subject.” It is to be noticed that this instruction omits all reference to the element of fraud, or intention to hinder or delay the creditor, in the absence of which the sale might be valid as against the pre-existing creditor, notwithstanding the vendor retained the physical possession or custody of the property. Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

This is a claim case. The plaintiff in fi. fa. attacked the validity of a sale of the property in dispute by the defendant in fi. fa. to the claimant. The time of the creation of the plaintiff’s debt does not appear. If it came into existence after the time of the sale, the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor must be reversed, because the charge of the court in certain particulars complained of was contrary to the principle stated in the first headnote above. If it was pre-existing at the time of the sale, the court should not have given the following instruction: “ If you should find that T. M. Parsons [the defendant in fi. fa.] ever owned the personal property levied on, and if you find that he afterwards sold it, but he remained in possession of the property, and the plaintiff in fi. fa. had no actual notice of the sale, but relied upon Parsons’ possession, then, if you find these facts to exist, you would be authorized to find the property subject.” It is to be noticed that this instruction omits all reference to the element of fraud, or intention to hinder or delay the creditor, in the absence of which the sale might be valid as against the pre-existing creditor, notwithstanding the vendor retained the physical possession or custody of the property. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 415, 10 Ga. App. 297, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jowers-v-high-point-furniture-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack