Morehead v. Holland Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morehead v. Holland Bros.

165 S.E. 926, 45 Ga. App. 708, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 664

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1932

Docket21986

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 926 (Morehead v. Holland Bros.) 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

Morehead v. Holland Bros., 165 S.E. 926, 45 Ga. App. 708, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. On the trial of a claim case, where the claimant admits that the property was in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy, and the claimant assumes the burden of proof, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to put the fi. fa. in evidence. Manley v. McKenzie, 128 Ga. 347 (57 S. E. 705).

2. Where the burden is upon the claimant to establish title to the property levied on, title in the claimant to the property, superior to the lien of the fi. fa. against the defendant, is not established conclusively and as a matter of law, although it appears from undisputed evidence that the claimant bought the property from the defendant in fi. fa. when at the time of the purchase the claimant knew that there was “a fi. fa.” against the defendant, but where it does not appear conclusively and as a matter of law that this fi. fa. of which the claimant had knowledge at the time of the purchase, was a fi. fa. other than the one levied upon the property.

3. The verdict finding the property subject to.the fi. fa. was authorized, and no error appears. The court therefore did not err in failing to sustain the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. On the trial of a claim case, where the claimant admits that the property was in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy, and the claimant assumes the burden of proof, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to put the fi. fa. in evidence. Manley v. McKenzie, 128 Ga. 347 (57 S. E. 705).

2. Where the burden is upon the claimant to establish title to the property levied on, title in the claimant to the property, superior to the lien of the fi. fa. against the defendant, is not established conclusively and as a matter of law, although it appears from undisputed evidence that the claimant bought the property from the defendant in fi. fa. when at the time of the purchase the claimant knew that there was “a fi. fa.” against the defendant, but where it does not appear conclusively and as a matter of law that this fi. fa. of which the claimant had knowledge at the time of the purchase, was a fi. fa. other than the one levied upon the property.

3. The verdict finding the property subject to.the fi. fa. was authorized, and no error appears. The court therefore did not err in failing to sustain the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 926, 45 Ga. App. 708, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morehead-v-holland-bros-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack