McLendon v. Ricks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McLendon v. Ricks

95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 15, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 103

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

Docket9342

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 471 (McLendon v. Ricks) 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

McLendon v. Ricks, 95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 15, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts of the case the court did not err in excluding from the evidence the common-law execution.

2. This was a suit on a note given in part payment for a meat-market outfit; to which the defendants pleaded total want of consideration. The evidence showed that there was an outstanding mortgage on the property at the time of its sale to the defendants, which was foreclosed subsequently to the sale, and that the property was bought in by a third person, and the defendants were deprived of its possession. Upon the trial there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether the vendor of the property, at the time it was sold to the defendants, warranted the property against this mortgage and promised them to • pay it off. This material fact being in dispute, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Although the mortgage was not recorded, it was .a valid lien upon the property, as the evidence shows that the purchasers had actual notice thereof at the time of the sale.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Sarwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts of the case the court did not err in excluding from the evidence the common-law execution.

2. This was a suit on a note given in part payment for a meat-market outfit; to which the defendants pleaded total want of consideration. The evidence showed that there was an outstanding mortgage on the property at the time of its sale to the defendants, which was foreclosed subsequently to the sale, and that the property was bought in by a third person, and the defendants were deprived of its possession. Upon the trial there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether the vendor of the property, at the time it was sold to the defendants, warranted the property against this mortgage and promised them to • pay it off. This material fact being in dispute, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Although the mortgage was not recorded, it was .a valid lien upon the property, as the evidence shows that the purchasers had actual notice thereof at the time of the sale.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Sarwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 471, 22 Ga. App. 15, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclendon-v-ricks-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack