Tobin v. Pursley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tobin v. Pursley

75 S.E. 265, 11 Ga. App. 352, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 399

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 23, 1912

Docket4123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 265 (Tobin v. Pursley) 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

Tobin v. Pursley, 75 S.E. 265, 11 Ga. App. 352, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

It is no defense to an action on a promissory note that the note was given for the purchase-price of a mule, secured by a mortgage . thereon; that the defendant delivered the mule to the plaintiff (the mortgagee) upon his agreement to foreclose the mortgage in a justice’s court, sell the mule at constable’s sale (the note and mortgage being for more than $100), and notify defendant of the time and place of sale; that the “plaintiff foreclosed the mortgage in the superior court, had the mule sold by the sheriff, and failed to notify the defendant of the time and place of sale, and that, in consequence of this failure, the defendant did not appear at the sale, and the mule was sold for a sum greatly less than its value. If the defendant has any remedy, it is by an' independent action against the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

It is no defense to an action on a promissory note that the note was given for the purchase-price of a mule, secured by a mortgage . thereon; that the defendant delivered the mule to the plaintiff (the mortgagee) upon his agreement to foreclose the mortgage in a justice’s court, sell the mule at constable’s sale (the note and mortgage being for more than $100), and notify defendant of the time and place of sale; that the “plaintiff foreclosed the mortgage in the superior court, had the mule sold by the sheriff, and failed to notify the defendant of the time and place of sale, and that, in consequence of this failure, the defendant did not appear at the sale, and the mule was sold for a sum greatly less than its value. If the defendant has any remedy, it is by an' independent action against the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 265, 11 Ga. App. 352, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobin-v-pursley-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack