Richter v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.

57 S.E. 939, 1 Ga. App. 344, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 236
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 1, 1907·No. 148·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. When on the trial of a claim case the burden of proof was on the plaintiff in execution, and the evidence in its behalf failed, to show that the property in dispute belonged to the defendant in execution at the time of the levy, a verdict finding it subject was unwarranted.

2. When in such a ease the 'claimant, though a minor, showed by uncontradicted evidence that he had been manumitted by his father, and had raised the crop levied upon on land rented from the owner, who was not his father, and paid for his own supplies, his claim was not defeated by the mere fact that his father was the defendant in fi. fa., that he lived with his father, who worked for him in the crop, or that his father lived on the same place.

3. The decision in this case is controlled by the rulings in Dollar v. Sasha, 124 Ga. 521, and Sams v. Thompson Hiles Co., 110 Ga. 648; and it was error to refuse a- new trial. Judgment reversed.

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

Richter v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 57 S.E. 939, 1 Ga. App. 344, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 236 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

57 S.E. 939 (Richter v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Evans v. Caldwell
184 S.E. 440 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Coleman v. Dublin Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
170 S.E. 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Scruggs v. Blackshear Manufacturing Co.
166 S.E. 249 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Lanier v. Bank of Portal
160 S.E. 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Jones v. McCowen
131 S.E. 290 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)