Towers v. City Land Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Towers v. City Land Co.

125 S.E. 837, 159 Ga. 486, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 4

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 16, 1924

DocketNo. 4373

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 837 (Towers v. City Land Co.) 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

Towers v. City Land Co., 125 S.E. 837, 159 Ga. 486, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 4 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. An execution in favor of tlie City Land Company against Marsell Towers was levied on certain realty. Tlie defendant interposed an affidavit of illegality. On tlie trial tlie defendant moved to dismiss tlie levy, on the ground that the execution was dormant, because more than seven years had elapsed after the last entry on the general execution docket. The defendant offered an amendment to the affidavit of illegality, setting up the same matter as showing dormancy of the judgment. The court refused to allow the amendment, and overruled the motion to dismiss the levy. After a final judgment of the trial court the case was carried to the Court of Appeals, where a judgment was rendered affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Held, that the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals was conclusive between the parties as the law of the case. Southern Bell Telephone &c. Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 (79 S. E. 136). See also Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Decatur, 153 Ga. 329 (111 S. E. 911); Tuggle v. Green, 150 Ga. 361, 366 (104 S. E. 85).

2. Where the defendant in fi. fa., after the adjudication referred to in the preceding note, instituted an equitable suit against the plaintiff in fi. fa. to enjoin the sale of the property under the aforementioned execution and levy, on the ground that the sheriff refused to aceept an affidavit of illegality predicated on the dormancy of the same execution, the judge did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction, under the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts. The answer of the defendants alleged the facts relating to the former adjudication in the trial court against the illegality setting up dormancy of the judgment, and affirmance of that judgment by the Court of Appeals; and there was 'no [487]*487demurrer to the answer 'on the ground that it did not set up a good plea of res adjudicata.

No. 4373. December 16, 1924. Rehearing denied January 17, 1925. Henry Walker, for plaintiff. Denny & Wright and Harris & Harris, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Jtisiices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. An execution in favor of tlie City Land Company against Marsell Towers was levied on certain realty. Tlie defendant interposed an affidavit of illegality. On tlie trial tlie defendant moved to dismiss tlie levy, on the ground that the execution was dormant, because more than seven years had elapsed after the last entry on the general execution docket. The defendant offered an amendment to the affidavit of illegality, setting up the same matter as showing dormancy of the judgment. The court refused to allow the amendment, and overruled the motion to dismiss the levy. After a final judgment of the trial court the case was carried to the Court of Appeals, where a judgment was rendered affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Held, that the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals was conclusive between the parties as the law of the case. Southern Bell Telephone &c. Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 (79 S. E. 136). See also Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Decatur, 153 Ga. 329 (111 S. E. 911); Tuggle v. Green, 150 Ga. 361, 366 (104 S. E. 85).

2. Where the defendant in fi. fa., after the adjudication referred to in the preceding note, instituted an equitable suit against the plaintiff in fi. fa. to enjoin the sale of the property under the aforementioned execution and levy, on the ground that the sheriff refused to aceept an affidavit of illegality predicated on the dormancy of the same execution, the judge did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction, under the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts. The answer of the defendants alleged the facts relating to the former adjudication in the trial court against the illegality setting up dormancy of the judgment, and affirmance of that judgment by the Court of Appeals; and there was 'no [487]*487demurrer to the answer 'on the ground that it did not set up a good plea of res adjudicata.

No. 4373. December 16, 1924. Rehearing denied January 17, 1925. Henry Walker, for plaintiff. Denny & Wright and Harris & Harris, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Jtisiices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 837, 159 Ga. 486, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towers-v-city-land-co-ga-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack