Tatham v. Lanier

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tatham v. Lanier

14 S.E.2d 765, 65 Ga. App. 51, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 253

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 19, 1941

Docket28921.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 S.E.2d 765 (Tatham v. Lanier) 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

Tatham v. Lanier, 14 S.E.2d 765, 65 Ga. App. 51, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

1. Grounds 2 and 5 of the affidavit of illegality did not set up any defense to the foreclosure affidavit, and the judge did not err in striking them on motion of the plaintiff.

2. The ground of demurrer to the foreclosure affidavit, that the copy of the conditional-sale contract was not verified, was without merit. The copy attached to the foreclosure affidavit was sufficiently verified to meet the requirements of the Code, § 67-701, by the statement contained in the affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a stated sum, upon the contract a copy of which was alleged to be attached and made a part thereof. Thigpen v. Vidalia Chemical Co., 42 Ga. App. 563 (156 S. E. 635).

3. No traverse having been filed or issue joined, the judge erred in refusing to determine on the affidavit of illegality, and, over the objections of the defendant, in forcing him to a trial of the case. “Where an affidavit of illegality and the execution have been returned into court, under the Civil Code, § 5307 [1933, § 39-1006], it is the duty of the cou,rt to determine ‘thereon’ at the first term, unless the plaintiff or his attorney desires to controvert the facts contained in the affidavit. In that event an issue shall be joined, and tried by a jury. The proper method of joining issue is in writing; and where objection is made by the attorney for the affiant to proceeding' to the jury in the absence of any traverse or issue joined or tendered, it is error for the court to overrule the objection merely because the attorney for the plaintiff states orally that he joins issue.” Thompson v. Fain, 139 Ga. 310 (77 S. E. 166). See also McLeod V. Bird, 14 Ga. App. 77 (80 S. E. 207) ; *52 Beavers v. Cassells, 56 Ga. App. 146, 152 (192 S. E. 249). The refusal of the court to determine on the affidavit of illegality rendered all proceedings thereafter nugatory.

Decided May 19, 1941.

4. The appellate division of the civil court of. Eulton County erred in affirming the rulings by the trial judge refusing to determine on the defendant’s affidavit of illegality, in forcing the defendant into a trial of the case, and overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., ooneur. *53 Louis M. Tatham, Eldon Haldane,- for plaintiff in error. Reynolds & Brandon, contra.

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

Sutton, J.

1. Grounds 2 and 5 of the affidavit of illegality did not set up any defense to the foreclosure affidavit, and the judge did not err in striking them on motion of the plaintiff.

2. The ground of demurrer to the foreclosure affidavit, that the copy of the conditional-sale contract was not verified, was without merit. The copy attached to the foreclosure affidavit was sufficiently verified to meet the requirements of the Code, § 67-701, by the statement contained in the affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a stated sum, upon the contract a copy of which was alleged to be attached and made a part thereof. Thigpen v. Vidalia Chemical Co., 42 Ga. App. 563 (156 S. E. 635).

3. No traverse having been filed or issue joined, the judge erred in refusing to determine on the affidavit of illegality, and, over the objections of the defendant, in forcing him to a trial of the case. “Where an affidavit of illegality and the execution have been returned into court, under the Civil Code, § 5307 [1933, § 39-1006], it is the duty of the cou,rt to determine ‘thereon’ at the first term, unless the plaintiff or his attorney desires to controvert the facts contained in the affidavit. In that event an issue shall be joined, and tried by a jury. The proper method of joining issue is in writing; and where objection is made by the attorney for the affiant to proceeding' to the jury in the absence of any traverse or issue joined or tendered, it is error for the court to overrule the objection merely because the attorney for the plaintiff states orally that he joins issue.” Thompson v. Fain, 139 Ga. 310 (77 S. E. 166). See also McLeod V. Bird, 14 Ga. App. 77 (80 S. E. 207) ; *52 Beavers v. Cassells, 56 Ga. App. 146, 152 (192 S. E. 249). The refusal of the court to determine on the affidavit of illegality rendered all proceedings thereafter nugatory.

Decided May 19, 1941.

4. The appellate division of the civil court of. Eulton County erred in affirming the rulings by the trial judge refusing to determine on the defendant’s affidavit of illegality, in forcing the defendant into a trial of the case, and overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., ooneur. *53 Louis M. Tatham, Eldon Haldane,- for plaintiff in error. Reynolds & Brandon, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E.2d 765, 65 Ga. App. 51, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatham-v-lanier-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack