Rountree v. Chrisman & Co.

93 S.E. 511, 20 Ga. App. 815, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 13, 1917
Docket8812
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

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.

Bluebook
Rountree v. Chrisman & Co., 93 S.E. 511, 20 Ga. App. 815, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1098 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Wade, C. J.'

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.

Decided September 13, 1917. Levy and claim; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. February 13, 1917. J. Z. Jackson, for plaintiff in error. Hendricks, Mills & Hendricks, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Master Loan Service Inc. v. Maddox
23 S.E.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Pinson-Brunson Motor Co. v. Bank of Danielsville
151 S.E. 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Van Dyke v. White Co.
127 S.E. 617 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.