Blount v. Dunlap

• Decision Date: 19 November 1925
• Docket Number: 16604.
• Citation: 130 S.E. 693,34 Ga.App. 666
• Parties: BLOUNT v. DUNLAP.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

130 S.E. 693

34 Ga.App. 666

BLOUNT v. DUNLAP.

No. 16604.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

November 19, 1925

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In view of Civ. Code 1910, § 5170, in claim case involving title to household goods levied on as property of defendant in attachment and claimed by his wife, property not having been found in defendant's possession, burden of proof was on plaintiff in attachment.

Where husband and wife lived together and used household goods, and wife returned no property for taxation, but husband returned property described in general terms as household goods, and where he did not own any other such property, inference was authorized that return had reference to household goods in family domicile.

In claim case involving title to household goods, that property was returned by husband for taxation and was not returned by wife held circumstances for jury.

Possession by husband with wife, in family domicile, is presumptively his possession, and possession is evidence of ownership.

Proof that household goods had been used as such until they were packed and stored at time when husband with family removed to another state, with evidence that property had been returned by husband for taxation, made out prima facie case of title in him at time of seizure thereof, and authorized finding for plaintiff in attachment.

In claim case, inferences, from evidence, that household goods were property of husband, held not, as matter of law, conclusively explained or rebutted by wife's testimony as claimant.

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.

Claim proceeding between Mrs. I. T. Blount and K. F. Dunlap. To review an adverse judgment, claimant brings error. Affirmed.

R. D Feagin and H. B. Bell, both of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Jno. J McCreary and Wallace Miller, both of Macon, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion of the Court.

BELL J.

1. This being a claim case involving the title to certain household goods and other personal effects, levied on as the property of the defendant in attachment and claimed by his wife, the property not having been found in the defendant's possession, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff in attachment. Civil Code 1910, § 5170.

2. Where it appears that a husband and wife were living together during a certain period and were using certain household goods in the family domicile, and the wife returned no property for taxation, but the husband, in the county of their residence and during such period, returned for taxation certain property described in general terms as household goods, and where it does not appear that he owned or was in possession of any other such property, the inference would be authorized that the return as made by him had reference to the household goods in the family domicile. That the property was returned by the husband and that it was not returned by the wife were circumstances which could be considered by the jury on the trial of the claim. McLendon v. Dunlap Hardware Co., 3 Ga.App. 206, 59 S.E. 718; Smith v. Haire, 58 Ga. 446 (1); Morris v. Winkles, 88 Ga. 717 (1), 15 S.E. 747; Dozier v. McWhorter, 117 Ga. 786 (4), 45 S.E. 61.

3. Possession, by the husband with the wife, in the family domicile, is presumptively his possession, and possession is evidence of ownership. Primrose v. Browning, 59 Ga 70 (1); Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584 (1), 13 S.E. 749; Garrard v. Hull, 92 Ga. 787 (2), 20 S.E. 357; Austin v. Southern Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 122 Ga. 439 (4), 50 S.E. 382; Smith v. Berman, 8 Ga.App. 262 (2), 68 S.E. 1014; Young v. State, 22 Ga.App. 111 (2), 95 S.E. 478. Proof that the various articles of property were the goods of the household and had been used as such until they were packed and stored for safekeeping (in October,...