TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thrash & Co. v. Harman

THRASH & COMPANY v. HARMAN

Thrash & Co. v. Harman, 94 S.E. 54 (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
October 31, 1917
Docket
No. 8506
Judges
Bloodworth
Citations
94 S.E. 5421 Ga. App. 981917 Ga. App. LEXIS 450
Cited by 4
Headnotes
Under previous rulings in this State, as applied to the facts of a case made by rule for distribution of money, the award by the judge was equitable and proper.
Summary
Money rule; from city court of Greenville — Judge Revill. January 34, 1917. J. A. Thrash & Company obtained four judgments in a justice’s court against Aleck Watson. On December 8, 1914, executions were issued, and on December 36, 1914, two of these executions were levied on a black horse-mule as the property of Aleck Watson. The mule was advertised for sale by the constable and was sold for $153. J. A. Thrash & Co. obtained a rule against the constable, who answered, admitting the facts stated in the rule. Cal and Charles Harman filed an intervention in which they alleged that the mule from the sale of which the fund in controversy arose was not the property of Aleck Watson, but belonged to them, because of the fact that on January 18, 1913, they sold the mule to Lou venia Watson, taking from her a note for the purchase-price, in which note they retained the title to the mule; that the note was duly recorded on January 19, 1913; that no part of the purchase-price of the mule has ever been paid, and that Aleck Watson and his wife, Louvenia Watson, were both insolvent. They prayed that “the- funds arising from said sale of said mule, after deducting legitimate cost, be ordered paid over to intervenors.” It was agreed by the parties that the facts set out in the rule, the answer, and the intervention, were “all that is necessary to a clear understanding of. the facts in said case, and that the facts contained in each are true.” The case was submitted, by agreement, to the judge without the intervention of a jury. He awarded the fund to the Harmans.

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..

A rule against a constable to distribute money in his hands is essentially an equitable proceeding. In Coleman v. Slade, 75 Ca. 73, it was said: “It must be borne in mind that these issues on money rules against the sheriff, when creditors contest for their respective rights and priorities of lien, are in the nature of equitable proceedings, and should be determined accordingly; and no irregularities should defeat the real equities of the parties and justice of the ease.” In Wright v. Brown, 7 Ga. App. 389 ( 66 S. E. 1034 ), it was held: “If the title to the property sold as the property of the defendant in attachment be in a third person by reason of his having reserved it in writing as security for the purchase-money, that third person may waive his right to follow the property and recover it from the purchaser at the sale, and in that event can, on money rule, have the proceeds .of the sale applied upon his debt; and this is true notwithstanding he gave public notice on the day of the sale that whoever bought would buy subject to his title.” . The same principle was applied in the case of Browder-Manget Co. v. Blake, 135 Ga. 71 ( 68 S. E. 837 ). See also Civil Code (1910); § 5348; Rucker v. Tabor, 133 Ga. 720 ( 66 S. E. 917 ); National Bank v. Exchange Bank, 110 Ga. 692 ( 36 S. E. 265 ); Baker v. Gladden, 72 Ga. 469 ; Field v. Armstrong, 69 Ga. 170 ; Bradshaw v. Gormerly, 54 Ga. 557, 559 ; Ragan v. Coley, 4 Ga. App. 421, 422 (5) ( 61 S. E. 862 ); Georgia Realty Co. v. Bank of Covington, 19 Ga. App. 219, 222 ( 91 S. E. 267 ). Under these decisions it seems clear that the conclusion reached in this case by the presiding judge was equitable, and that the money was properly awarded. See also Hinton v. Burns, 20 Ga. App. 467 ( 93 S. E. 120 ).

• Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., arid Harwell, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1924: 11927: 11937: 11941: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Few v. Pou124 S.E. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
  2. Holbrook v. Stewart191 S.E. 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937)
  3. Smith v. C. I. T. Corporation13 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
  4. Kirsch v. Witt140 S.E. 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Smith v. C. I. T. Corporation13 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
  2. Holbrook v. Stewart191 S.E. 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937)
  3. Kirsch v. Witt140 S.E. 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
  4. Few v. Pou124 S.E. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)

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 10

DepthCaseCited by
Wright, Williams & Wadley v. Brown, 66 S.E. 1034 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910) 19
Nat'l Bank v. Exch. Bank, 36 S.E. 265 (Ga. 1900) 12
Ga. Realty Co. v. Bank of Covington, 91 S.E. 267 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917) 7
Rucker v. Tabor & Almand, 66 S.E. 917 (Ga. 1910) 6
Browder, Manget & Co. v. Blake & Madden, 68 S.E. 837 (Ga. 1910) 6
Ragan v. Coley & Brother, 61 S.E. 862 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) 6
Hinton v. Burns, 93 S.E. 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917) 2
Bradshaw v. Gormerly, 54 Ga. 557 (1875) 10
Baker & Hall v. Gladden, 72 Ga. 469 (1884) 8
Field v. Armstrong, 69 Ga. 170 (1882) 2

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