Tripod Paint Co. v. Hamilton

35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 823, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 761
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 10, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 696 (Tripod Paint Co. v. Hamilton) 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
Tripod Paint Co. v. Hamilton, 35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 823, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 761 (Ga. 1900).

Opinion

Pish, J.

1. Where one took a deed to land to secure a debt and gave bond to reconvey upon its payment, and thereafter transferred the written obligation of the debtor to another, at the same time also conveying to the assignee the title to the land described in the security deed, and subsequently such assignee brought suit aud recovered a general judgment against the debtor, and filed and had recorded a deed conveying the land to him, and then caused it to be levied upon and sold, such judgment was entitled to the fund arising from the sale in preference to an older judgment rendered after the security deed was executed. McAlpin v. Bailey, 76 Ga. 687.

2 In a contest between the two judgments over the fund realized at .the sheriff’s sale, it was not a valid objection to the introduction in evidence of the deed reconveying the land to the judgment debtor that the verdict upon which the judgment in favor of the holderof the security deed was based did not set forth a special lien upon the land, where the existence of such lien was shown by other competent evidence in the case. Coleman v. Slade, 75 Ga. 61; McAlpin v. Bailey, supra.

Argued March 16,— Decided April 10, 1900. Motion to distribute money. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. July term, 1899. Henry Walker, for plaintiff in error. Wright & Hamilton, contra.

3. The assignee of the written obligation of the debtor to pay the money and of the title conveyed by the deed given to secure its payment took all the rights of the assignor andall the remedies for enforcing the same. Hunt v. New Eng. Mortg. Sec. Co., 92 Ga. 720.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Lively v. Oberdorfer
119 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders
92 S.E. 934 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Gillespie v. Hunt
91 S.E. 468 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Maddox v. Arthur
50 S.E. 668 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 823, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tripod-paint-co-v-hamilton-ga-1900.