Lewis v. Lewis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lewis v. Lewis

158 S.E. 364, 43 Ga. App. 227, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 275

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1931

Docket21101

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 364 (Lewis v. Lewis) 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

Lewis v. Lewis, 158 S.E. 364, 43 Ga. App. 227, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Ordinarily the question of whether the resale of property was “as soon as practicable” is one for the jury, when the resale occurred within three or four months of the first sale. However, the evidence of the plaintiff in this case shows that he had notice “immediately or shortly” after the first sale that the defendant would not take the property. The plaintiff’s evidence shows that the defendant told him that “he would not pay anything. He left it up to me to dispose of it in whatever way I thought best.” And after the plaintiff received this notice it was approximately fifteen months before he had a resale of the property. We think the case is controlled by the decision in Saunders v. Bell, 56 Ga. 442, the headnote of which is the first headnote to this opinion. See also Hardin v. Adair, 140 Ga. 263, 265, 266 (78 S. E. 1073, L. R. A. (N. S.) 896).

“No note or memorandum in writing is necessary to charge [229]*229either the administrator or purchaser at any administrator’s sale.” Arnold v. Arnold, 154 Ga. 195 (113 S. E. 798).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, Q. J., and Luhe, J., concur., Blood-worth, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

Ordinarily the question of whether the resale of property was “as soon as practicable” is one for the jury, when the resale occurred within three or four months of the first sale. However, the evidence of the plaintiff in this case shows that he had notice “immediately or shortly” after the first sale that the defendant would not take the property. The plaintiff’s evidence shows that the defendant told him that “he would not pay anything. He left it up to me to dispose of it in whatever way I thought best.” And after the plaintiff received this notice it was approximately fifteen months before he had a resale of the property. We think the case is controlled by the decision in Saunders v. Bell, 56 Ga. 442, the headnote of which is the first headnote to this opinion. See also Hardin v. Adair, 140 Ga. 263, 265, 266 (78 S. E. 1073, L. R. A. (N. S.) 896).

“No note or memorandum in writing is necessary to charge [229]*229either the administrator or purchaser at any administrator’s sale.” Arnold v. Arnold, 154 Ga. 195 (113 S. E. 798).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, Q. J., and Luhe, J., concur., Blood-worth, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 364, 43 Ga. App. 227, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lewis-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack