Security Mortgage Co. v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Georgia

Security Mortgage Co. v. Bailey

144 S.E. 899, 167 Ga. 119, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 108

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1928

DocketNo. 6259

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 899 (Security Mortgage Co. v. Bailey) 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

Security Mortgage Co. v. Bailey, 144 S.E. 899, 167 Ga. 119, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 108 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The evidence in this ease demands a finding that the liens of the tax fi. fas. were satisfied relatively to the plaintiff’s lot, on account of releases for value from the liens of the same fi. fas. on the other lots subject thereto by the transferee and holder of the fi. fas. in favor of grantees of said last-mentioned lots, who received deeds to their lots from plaintiff’s grantor subsequently to plaintiff’s deed to his separate lot. Civil Code (1910), § 6048.

2. In these circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the sale of his lot under the tax fi. fas.; and the court erred in refusing an injunction unless the plaintiff would give bond.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Sill, JJ., dissenting. Candler, Thomson & Hirsch and W. B. Cody, for plaintiff. A. C. Corbett, Frank Carter, J. L. Mayson, and C. 8. Winn, for • defendants.

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

Per Curiam.

1. The evidence in this ease demands a finding that the liens of the tax fi. fas. were satisfied relatively to the plaintiff’s lot, on account of releases for value from the liens of the same fi. fas. on the other lots subject thereto by the transferee and holder of the fi. fas. in favor of grantees of said last-mentioned lots, who received deeds to their lots from plaintiff’s grantor subsequently to plaintiff’s deed to his separate lot. Civil Code (1910), § 6048.

2. In these circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the sale of his lot under the tax fi. fas.; and the court erred in refusing an injunction unless the plaintiff would give bond.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Sill, JJ., dissenting. Candler, Thomson & Hirsch and W. B. Cody, for plaintiff. A. C. Corbett, Frank Carter, J. L. Mayson, and C. 8. Winn, for • defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 899, 167 Ga. 119, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-mortgage-co-v-bailey-ga-1928.