Mulling v. Bank of Cobbtown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mulling v. Bank of Cobbtown

135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 55, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 758

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1926

Docket17136

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 222 (Mulling v. Bank of Cobbtown) 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

Mulling v. Bank of Cobbtown, 135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 55, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. An accommodation indorser is a surety. Civil Code (1910), § 3541. A principal and a surety are joint and several promisors. Heard v. Tappan, 116 Ga. 930 (1) (43 S. E. 375). An execution against them may proceed against the property of either at the election of the plaintiff. Williams v. Kennedy, 134 Ga. 339 (3) (67 S. E. 821); Bank of LaFayette v. Wardlaw, 20 Ga. App. 741 (4) (93 S. E. 236).

2. Where property is levied upon to satisfy an execution against joint makers and a surety, the fact that the advertisement of the sale of the property “sets forth that said execution is only against” the person who was surety is no ground for arresting the process by affidavit of illegality. Fitzgerald Granitoid Co. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co., 15 Ga. App. 174 (3) (82 S. E. 774).

3. Nor is it a ground of illegality that the defendant surety was not notified of the impending levy and was given no opportunity to point out property either in his possession or in the .possession of one of the [56]*56principals in the judgment. Civil Code (1910), § 6028; Douglas v. Singer Co., 102 Ga. 560 (2) (27 S. E. 664).

Decided October 16, 1926. H. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error. Anderson & Trapnell, contra.

4. “The provision of the statute as to the giving of notice of levy to the tenant in possession is merely directory, and the failure to give such notice does not render the levy ipso facto void. Solomon v. Peters, 37 Ga. 251 (92 Am. D. 69); Cox v. Montford, 66 Ga. 62 (3). The levy not being void through the failure of the sheriff to perform this ministerial duty, this irregularity affords no ground for staying the execution by an affidavit ol illegality.” Banks v. Giles, 20 Ga. App. 97 (2) (92 S. E. 651).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. An accommodation indorser is a surety. Civil Code (1910), § 3541. A principal and a surety are joint and several promisors. Heard v. Tappan, 116 Ga. 930 (1) (43 S. E. 375). An execution against them may proceed against the property of either at the election of the plaintiff. Williams v. Kennedy, 134 Ga. 339 (3) (67 S. E. 821); Bank of LaFayette v. Wardlaw, 20 Ga. App. 741 (4) (93 S. E. 236).

2. Where property is levied upon to satisfy an execution against joint makers and a surety, the fact that the advertisement of the sale of the property “sets forth that said execution is only against” the person who was surety is no ground for arresting the process by affidavit of illegality. Fitzgerald Granitoid Co. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co., 15 Ga. App. 174 (3) (82 S. E. 774).

3. Nor is it a ground of illegality that the defendant surety was not notified of the impending levy and was given no opportunity to point out property either in his possession or in the .possession of one of the [56]*56principals in the judgment. Civil Code (1910), § 6028; Douglas v. Singer Co., 102 Ga. 560 (2) (27 S. E. 664).

Decided October 16, 1926. H. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error. Anderson & Trapnell, contra.

4. “The provision of the statute as to the giving of notice of levy to the tenant in possession is merely directory, and the failure to give such notice does not render the levy ipso facto void. Solomon v. Peters, 37 Ga. 251 (92 Am. D. 69); Cox v. Montford, 66 Ga. 62 (3). The levy not being void through the failure of the sheriff to perform this ministerial duty, this irregularity affords no ground for staying the execution by an affidavit ol illegality.” Banks v. Giles, 20 Ga. App. 97 (2) (92 S. E. 651).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 55, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulling-v-bank-of-cobbtown-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack