TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Blanchard, Humber & Co. v. Hagan Gas Engine & Manufacturing Co.

BLANCHARD, HUMBER & CO v. HAGAN GAS ENGINE & MANUFACTURING CO.

Blanchard, Humber & Co. v. Hagan Gas Engine & Mfg. Co., 106 S.E. 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 16, 1921
Docket
No. 12055
Judges
Hill
Citations
106 S.E. 60426 Ga. App. 5381921 Ga. App. LEXIS 516
Cited by 4
Headnotes
In a claim case wliere tlie evidence clearly showed that at the date of the levy of the execution the defendant in fi. fa. had both title to and possession of the property levied on it was proper for the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa.
Summary
Levy and claim; from Marion superior court — Judge Hutcheson presiding. October 26, 1920. This is a claim case. The evidence in substance is as follows : The defendant in fi. fa. bought certain personal property from the Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company, giving therefor promissory notes containing a retention of title to the personalty until paid for, which were duly recorded. He paid the notes and an entry of payment was duly made on the record, and possession of the property was delivered to him by the payee. The execution against him was obtained on April 25, 1916, and on July 8, 1919, was levied on the personalty in question, which was then in his possession. On the part of the claimants it was testified that the property in question was their property at the date of the levy. The claim was based on the following facts: The claimants lent to the defendant in fi. fa. the money to pay his notes for the property, and he paid the notes and took possession of the property. Subsequently, on August 4, 1919, a transfer of the notes, which had previously been marked paid and delivered to the defendant in fi. fa., was made by the Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company to the claimants, at the request of the defendant in fi. fa. while the property was in the possession of the levying officer. The defendant in fi. fa. testified that he had never repaid to the claimants the money borrowed to pay the notes. The court, at the conclusion of the evidence, directed a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the claimants excepted.

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

Opinion of the Court — Hill

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

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The direction of a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa. was demanded. No other legal verdict could have been rendered. The property levied on was in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy. The title thereto became his when he paid the title-retention notes. The fact that the claimants had loaned to the defendant in fi. fa. the money with which to pay these notes did not give the claimants any title to tlie property as against the lien of plaintiff’s fi. fa., in the absence of a written transfer of the notes. Swann Davis Co. v. Stanton, 7 Ga. App. 668 ( 67 S. E. 888 ); Burch v. Pedigo, 113 Ga. 1157 ( 39 S. E. 493 , 54 L. R. A. 808). The testimony of the claimants that the property levied upon at the date of the levy was their property was merely a conclusion of the witness and without any probative value, the facts clearly showing that at that time the title was in the defendant in fi. fa., the title-retention notes having been paid by him and delivered up to him by the payee.' Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens-, 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 →
1966: 21974: 11979: 119662026peak 1966 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bankers Health & Life Insurance v. Fryhofer150 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Mutual Life Insurance v. Bishop209 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. Patterson v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance148 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. 1966)
  4. Crymes v. Crymes264 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Crymes v. Crymes264 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Mutual Life Insurance v. Bishop209 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. Bankers Health & Life Insurance v. Fryhofer150 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  4. Patterson v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance148 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. 1966)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Burch v. Pedigo & Lyons, 54 L.R.A. 808 (Ga. 1901) 21
Swann Davis Co. v. Stanton, 67 S.E. 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910) 7

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