TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hancock v. Tipton Guano Co.

Hancock v. Tipton Guano Company

Hancock v. Tipton Guano Co., 91 S.E. 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 23, 1917
Docket
No. 7628
Judges
Bloodworth
Citations
91 S.E. 24619 Ga. App. 1851917 Ga. App. LEXIS 53
Summary
Affidavit of illegality; from- city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. June 5, 1916.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bloodworth

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bloodworth, J.

1. A ground of an affidavit of illegality that “the execution was issued, to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief, before the overruling of a motion for new trial in the case,” is without merit. Civil Code, § 6020. Besides, this ground is not verified positively and was properly stricken. Sprinz v. Vannucki, 80 Ga. 774 ( 6 S. E. 816 ).

2. “If the defendant has had his day in court, he can not go behind the judgment by an affidavit of illegality.” Civil Code, § 5311; Tumlin v. O’Bryan, 68 Ga. 65 ; Brantley v. Greer, 71 Ga. 11 .

3. “Where a court has jurisdiction, it is to be presumed that it had before it pleadings and evidence authorizing the verdict rendered.” Bedingfield v. First National Bank, 4 Ga. App. 197 (3), 204 ( 61 S. E. 30 ).

4. Where an affidavit of illegalityxis filed, the grounds of which are.absolutely without merit, and at thé trial term of the cause the defendant in fi. fa. is excused from the court for providential cause, it is not error requiring a reversal that afterwards and during the term the. affidavit of illegality, on motion of plaintiff in fi. fa., and over objection of the defendant in fi. fa. (who neither offered to amend nor made any other motion), is dismissed on the ground that the grounds of illegality are insufficient in law. Injury must result before there is error. Goodman v. Brown, 17 Ga. App. 778 ( 88 S. E. 593 ).

5. blot being fully convinced that this case was appealed for delay only, the request of the defendant in error that ten per cent, damages be assessed against plaintiff in error is refused.

Judgment affirmed-.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11935: 11942: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hall v. Eufaula Brick Co.178 S.E. 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  2. Bisbee v. Knight26 A.2d 637 (Me. 1942)
  3. Taylor v. Keown137 S.E. 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Bisbee v. Knight26 A.2d 637 (Me. 1942)
  2. Hall v. Eufaula Brick Co.178 S.E. 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  3. Taylor v. Keown137 S.E. 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Bedingfield v. First Nat'l Bank, 61 S.E. 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) 17
Sprinz v. Vannucki, 6 S.E. 816 (Ga. 1888) 7
Goodman v. Brown, 88 S.E. 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916) 3
Brantley v. Greer, 71 Ga. 11 (1883) 19
Tumlin v. O'Bryan & Bros., 68 Ga. 65 (1881) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list