Towers v. City Land Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Towers v. City Land Co.

121 S.E. 701, 31 Ga. App. 612, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 98

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 22, 1924

Docket14520

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 701 (Towers v. City Land Co.) 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

Towers v. City Land Co., 121 S.E. 701, 31 Ga. App. 612, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The levy in this case having been made within seven years from the date of the issuance of the execution, and the plaintiff in execution having within seven years after the levy twice advertised the property for sale, but being prevented from enforcing his„execution, by various court proceedings instituted by the defendant in execution, a motion to dismiss the levy, upon the ground that the judgment upon which the execution had issued was dormant, made upon the hearing of an issue formed by an affidavit of illegality filed by the defendant in execution within seven years from the last advertisement, was properly overruled, and the proffered amendment to the affidavit of illegality, to the same effect, was properly disallowed. Although no entries were made upon any execution docket, the plaintiff’s conduct evinced a bona fide public effort to enforce his execution in the courts of the country at such times and periods that seven years did not elapse between such attemps. Craven v. Martin, 140 Ga. 651 (79 S. E. 568); Smith v. Zachry, 1 Ga. App. 344 (57 S. E. 1011); First National Bank of Bainbridge v. McCaskill, 27 Ga. App. 391 (108 S. E. 819).

2. No other errors assigned in the bill of exceptions are insisted upon by counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eonewr. Henry Walker, for plaintiff in error. Denny & Wright, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The levy in this case having been made within seven years from the date of the issuance of the execution, and the plaintiff in execution having within seven years after the levy twice advertised the property for sale, but being prevented from enforcing his„execution, by various court proceedings instituted by the defendant in execution, a motion to dismiss the levy, upon the ground that the judgment upon which the execution had issued was dormant, made upon the hearing of an issue formed by an affidavit of illegality filed by the defendant in execution within seven years from the last advertisement, was properly overruled, and the proffered amendment to the affidavit of illegality, to the same effect, was properly disallowed. Although no entries were made upon any execution docket, the plaintiff’s conduct evinced a bona fide public effort to enforce his execution in the courts of the country at such times and periods that seven years did not elapse between such attemps. Craven v. Martin, 140 Ga. 651 (79 S. E. 568); Smith v. Zachry, 1 Ga. App. 344 (57 S. E. 1011); First National Bank of Bainbridge v. McCaskill, 27 Ga. App. 391 (108 S. E. 819).

2. No other errors assigned in the bill of exceptions are insisted upon by counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eonewr. Henry Walker, for plaintiff in error. Denny & Wright, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 701, 31 Ga. App. 612, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towers-v-city-land-co-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack