Maddox v. Carithers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maddox v. Carithers

47 S.E.2d 888, 77 Ga. App. 280, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 533

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1948

Docket31992.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 S.E.2d 888 (Maddox v. Carithers) 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

Maddox v. Carithers, 47 S.E.2d 888, 77 Ga. App. 280, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

We think this case is controlled by principles of law as to the conclusiveness of judgments. “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue . . in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” Code, § 110-501. “A judgment shall be admissible between, any parties to show the fact of the rendition thereof; between parties and privies it is conclusive as to the matter directly in issue, until reversed or set aside.” Code, § 38-623.. When the defendant in this trover suit sued the plaintiff herein for divorce, and she filed her cross-bill claiming title to the automobile here involved, the question of title was adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, without objection by either party, and the judgment awarding the automobile to the wife was affirmed by the Supreme Court. We think that the judgment rendered in the other case, where the issue as to the title of the automobile was directly made, is conclusive on that question in this case. The testimony upon the trial of the divorce case shows that both parties thereto *282 were claiming title to the automobile, and that issue was the only point involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court. When these facts appeared, title and the right of possession were shown to be in the plaintiff, and she was entitled to recover.

The husband could not, as between himself and his wife, sell the automobile during the pendency of the divorce case and thus prevent the wife from recovering the property or its value in this action. If the husband did sell the automobile as contended by him, a contention he did not make on the trial of the divorce case, he did so at his own peril; and such sale was a conversion which made it unnecessary for the plaintiff to show possession by the defendant at the time of the filing of her suit. Hudson v. Gunn, 20 Ga. App. 95 (lb) (92 S. E. 546); Planters Warehouse v. Sims, 35 Ga. App. 212 (2) (132 S. E. 252); Chambless v. Livingston, 123 Ga. 257 (2) (51 S. E. 314).

The court erred in finding in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff’s motion for new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Parker, J.

We think this case is controlled by principles of law as to the conclusiveness of judgments. “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue . . in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” Code, § 110-501. “A judgment shall be admissible between, any parties to show the fact of the rendition thereof; between parties and privies it is conclusive as to the matter directly in issue, until reversed or set aside.” Code, § 38-623.. When the defendant in this trover suit sued the plaintiff herein for divorce, and she filed her cross-bill claiming title to the automobile here involved, the question of title was adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, without objection by either party, and the judgment awarding the automobile to the wife was affirmed by the Supreme Court. We think that the judgment rendered in the other case, where the issue as to the title of the automobile was directly made, is conclusive on that question in this case. The testimony upon the trial of the divorce case shows that both parties thereto *282 were claiming title to the automobile, and that issue was the only point involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court. When these facts appeared, title and the right of possession were shown to be in the plaintiff, and she was entitled to recover.

The husband could not, as between himself and his wife, sell the automobile during the pendency of the divorce case and thus prevent the wife from recovering the property or its value in this action. If the husband did sell the automobile as contended by him, a contention he did not make on the trial of the divorce case, he did so at his own peril; and such sale was a conversion which made it unnecessary for the plaintiff to show possession by the defendant at the time of the filing of her suit. Hudson v. Gunn, 20 Ga. App. 95 (lb) (92 S. E. 546); Planters Warehouse v. Sims, 35 Ga. App. 212 (2) (132 S. E. 252); Chambless v. Livingston, 123 Ga. 257 (2) (51 S. E. 314).

The court erred in finding in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff’s motion for new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.E.2d 888, 77 Ga. App. 280, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-carithers-gactapp-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack