Rountree v. Chrisman & Co.
This text of 93 S.E. 511 (Rountree v. Chrisman & Co.) 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.
Opinion
The property levied upon was described in the mortgage fi. fa. as “one yellow mare mule 6 years old, about 15 hands high,” and the mortgage upon which this fi. fa. was based covered property described as “one yellow mare 6 year old, about 15 hand high,” but the mortgage recited, immediately following these words of description, that “it is expressly agreed that said J. N. Chrisman & Company do not warrant health, life, soundness, and work of said mule [italics [816]*816ours], only tlie title thereto, and which the said J. A. Moree hereby mortgages to the said.J. N. Chrisman & Company, to secure the pur-, chase price aforesaid.” The mortgagor sold the mortgaged property to a person who in turn sold it to the plaintiff in error, and the latter interposed a claim to it when it was levied upon under the mortgage fi. fa. as “one yellow mare mule, . . the property of J. A. Moree, by virtue of a mortgage fi. fa.,” etc. Held, that the mortgage, when considered as a whole, indicated the existence of a contract lien upon a yellow mare mule sufficiently to place all third persons upon constructive notice thereof; and the trial judge (there being no conflict in the evidence) , did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa., finding the property subject to the mortgage execution.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 S.E. 511, 20 Ga. App. 815, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rountree-v-chrisman-co-gactapp-1917.