Stanfield v. Darby

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanfield v. Darby

165 S.E. 864, 45 Ga. App. 686, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 654

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1932

Docket21850

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 864 (Stanfield v. Darby) 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

Stanfield v. Darby, 165 S.E. 864, 45 Ga. App. 686, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where an affidavit made as the foundation for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, as required in section 3286 of the Civil Code of 1910, recites that the mortgage is “annexed” to it, the affidavit, which, as provided in section 5706 of the Civil Code of 1910, is “amendable to the same extent as ordinary declarations, and with only the restrictions, limitations, and consequences now obtaining in the case of ordinary declarations and pleas,” is, upon the trial of an issue formed by a counter-affidavit, subject to amendment by attaching thereto a verified copy of the mortgage referred to in the affidavit. The court did not err in allowing the amendment.

2. This being a foreclosure of a chattel mortgage given for the purchase-price of mules sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, to which the defendant pleaded, as a failure of consideration, certain alleged defects in the mules, and the evidence as to value, tending to prove the extent of the failure of consideration, being matter of opinion, and the value therefore being a question for the jury, the verdict found for the plaintiff in an amount less than the alleged balance due upon the note was, as against the defendant, authorized, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlwns, P. J., and Sulton, J., concur. M. W. Eason, D. L. Stanfield, for plaintiff in error. H. G. Beasley, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where an affidavit made as the foundation for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, as required in section 3286 of the Civil Code of 1910, recites that the mortgage is “annexed” to it, the affidavit, which, as provided in section 5706 of the Civil Code of 1910, is “amendable to the same extent as ordinary declarations, and with only the restrictions, limitations, and consequences now obtaining in the case of ordinary declarations and pleas,” is, upon the trial of an issue formed by a counter-affidavit, subject to amendment by attaching thereto a verified copy of the mortgage referred to in the affidavit. The court did not err in allowing the amendment.

2. This being a foreclosure of a chattel mortgage given for the purchase-price of mules sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, to which the defendant pleaded, as a failure of consideration, certain alleged defects in the mules, and the evidence as to value, tending to prove the extent of the failure of consideration, being matter of opinion, and the value therefore being a question for the jury, the verdict found for the plaintiff in an amount less than the alleged balance due upon the note was, as against the defendant, authorized, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlwns, P. J., and Sulton, J., concur. M. W. Eason, D. L. Stanfield, for plaintiff in error. H. G. Beasley, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 864, 45 Ga. App. 686, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfield-v-darby-gactapp-1932.