Anderson v. Merchants' & Miners' State Bank
| Decision Date | 16 September 1925 |
| Docket Number | 4558. |
| Citation | 129 S.E. 650,161 Ga. 12 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. MERCHANTS' & MINERS' STATE BANK. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In proceeding to sell land and stock of merchandise of husband in which wife claimed property levied on, evidence held to sustain verdict finding property subject to fi. fa.
Evidence as to probable state of mind of one who executed written instrument at time subsequent to making thereof is irrelevant and incompetent to illustrate intention which actuated maker at prior time when it was made and delivered.
Under Civ. Code 1910, § 3226, requiring purchaser of stock of goods to demand names and addresses of "all creditors of vendor," there is no distinction between creditors whose debts have arisen from sales of merchandise and creditors to whom indebtedness was created by debtor for other reasons.
Bulk Sales Act applies as well to sale of stock of goods in bulk by debtor to creditor to extinguish debt as to sale for cash or on credit.
Error from Superior Court, Fannin County; D. W. Blair, Judge.
Proceeding by the Merchants' & Miners' State Bank to sell land and chattels of J. W. Anderson, in which Mrs. M. C. Anderson interposed claim. Judgment for plaintiff in fi. fa., and claimant brings error. Affirmed.
Thos A. Brown, of Blue Ridge, and Morris, Hawkins & Wallace, of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
Wm Butt, of Blue Ridge, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
On May 1, 1919, the defendant in fi. fa. made and delivered to the Merchants' & Miners' State Bank his promissory note for $1,200 in payment of 20 shares of stock at $60 per share. On March 1, 1919, after a meeting of the directors of said bank, of which the defendant in fi. fa. was one, he made and delivered to said bank his note for $850. On May 14, 1919 the defendant in fi. fa. executed two separate deeds and a bill of sale, conveying to his wife by the deeds certain realty therein described in each deed respectively, and conveying by the bill of sale a certain stock of merchandise as a whole, or in bulk. The claimant is the wife of the defendant in fi. fa. The evidence as to the bona fides of the transaction is conflicting. There was sufficient evidence in behalf of the claimant to have authorized a finding in her behalf, and yet the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff in fi. fa. is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury finding the property in dispute subject to the fi. fa. The trial judge excluded from evidence two letters written to the defendant in fi. fa. dated June 27, 1919, and September 22, 1920, respectively, by Greenway, the cashier of the bank, the plaintiff in fi. fa., which tended to indicate, if not to establish, that the bank was in good condition, or at least solvent, upon the dates referred to, and exception is taken to this ruling upon the evidence. The judge charged the jury that, under the provisions of the Sales in Bulk Act of 1903 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial