Piedmont Savings Co. v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Piedmont Savings Co. v. Chapman

153 S.E. 4, 170 Ga. 331, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 447

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1930

DocketNo. 7298

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 4 (Piedmont Savings Co. v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Piedmont Savings Co. v. Chapman, 153 S.E. 4, 170 Ga. 331, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 447 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Certain shares of stock in a private corporation rver.e levied upon and sold under a duly recorded execution which had been transferred to a third person. At the time of the sale a duly recorded junior execution was placed in the hands of the sheriff with a demand that the proceeds of sale be applied thereon. The transferee of the senior execution became the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, and, desiring to obtain the stock so purchased without paying- the amount of the bid over to the sheriff, entered into a written agreement with the holder of the junior execution, whereby he should give bond and security for the payment of the amount of his bid, and thereupon should receive the certificates of stock. The agreement also provided that proceedings should be instituted in the superior court of Fulton county, to determine the priorities between the parties to the fund, and that the case should be tried at the first term by the judge without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts. The terms of the contract were carried into effect. The holder of the junior execution filed a petition to which an answer was interposed by the transferee of the senior execution ana the sheriff. The case was submitted to the judge on an agreed statement of facts, who rendered a judgment awarding the fund to the transferee of the senior execution. The exception is to that judgment. The case does not involve the grant of any affirmative equitable relief or tile application of any rule of equitable procedure, and is not such as to confer jurisdiction of the writ of error upon the Supreme Court. Accordingly it will be transferred to the Court of Appeals. Burkhalter v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 170 Ga. 237 (152 S. E. 98).

Transferred to Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. Madison Richardson, for plaintiff. Etheridge, Peek & Etheridge, for defendants.

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

Atkinson, J.

Certain shares of stock in a private corporation rver.e levied upon and sold under a duly recorded execution which had been transferred to a third person. At the time of the sale a duly recorded junior execution was placed in the hands of the sheriff with a demand that the proceeds of sale be applied thereon. The transferee of the senior execution became the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, and, desiring to obtain the stock so purchased without paying- the amount of the bid over to the sheriff, entered into a written agreement with the holder of the junior execution, whereby he should give bond and security for the payment of the amount of his bid, and thereupon should receive the certificates of stock. The agreement also provided that proceedings should be instituted in the superior court of Fulton county, to determine the priorities between the parties to the fund, and that the case should be tried at the first term by the judge without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts. The terms of the contract were carried into effect. The holder of the junior execution filed a petition to which an answer was interposed by the transferee of the senior execution ana the sheriff. The case was submitted to the judge on an agreed statement of facts, who rendered a judgment awarding the fund to the transferee of the senior execution. The exception is to that judgment. The case does not involve the grant of any affirmative equitable relief or tile application of any rule of equitable procedure, and is not such as to confer jurisdiction of the writ of error upon the Supreme Court. Accordingly it will be transferred to the Court of Appeals. Burkhalter v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 170 Ga. 237 (152 S. E. 98).

Transferred to Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. Madison Richardson, for plaintiff. Etheridge, Peek & Etheridge, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 4, 170 Ga. 331, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piedmont-savings-co-v-chapman-ga-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack