Daniel v. Davis

• Citation: 68 Ga. 138
• Parties: Crine & Daniel. vs. Davis, receiver.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1881
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 Ga. 138

Crine & Daniel. vs. Davis, receiver.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1881.

Mortgages. Contracts. Estoppel. Receivers. Before Judge Fleming. Dougherty Superior Court. Ap~il Term, 1881.

Reported in the decision.

C. B. Wooten; L. Arnheim, for plaintiff in error.

Wright & Pope, for defendant.

JACKSON, Chief Justice.

Certain goods of one Johnson were levied on by the sheriff, and one hundred and fifty-six dollars were held by him as the proceeds thereof. Davis, as receiver for Welch & Bacon, on a money rule against the sheriff, claimed this fund on a mortgage given to Welch & Bacon, and Crine & Daniel claimed it on a distress for rent. The mortgage was older than the distress for rent, but Crine & Daniel put in the following allegations on which they claimed the money:

" And now come respondents M. Crine and C. J. Daniel, using the firm name of Crine & Daniel, and in answer to the rule nisi served upon them in the case above stated say, that they claim the money referred to in said rule under and by virtue of a distress warrant sued out by them against the said Jas. Johnson and one Peter Austin, returnable to the April term of the superior court of cold county, 1881. That said distress warrant is based upon the contract for the rent of the Crine & Daniel place, situated on the east side of Flint river for the year of 1881, which said contract was dated December 20th, 1880, whereby the said Jas. Johnson and Peter Austin undertook and promised to pay respondents 14 bales of lint cotton, to class low middling, and said cotton to be picked, packed and delivered to said Crine & Daniel in Albany, Ga., which said cotton is of the value of six hundred and thirty dollars; and respondents further answering say, that before and at the time of entering into said contract of rent with the said Johnson & Austin, respondents had an agreement and understanding with Welch & Bacon, the payees in said mortgage, in which the said Welch & Bacon, in consideration that respondents would enter into said contract of rent, agreed and promised respondents that their said mortgage should in no case interfere with them in the collection of their rent, the said Welch & Bacon urged the respondents to rent said place to said Johnson & Austin, saying that they would not break them up, but would run them and see the rent paid, and that no claim of theirs should come in conflict with respondents\' claim for rent; and that upon the faith of this promise and assurance of Welch & Bacon, respondents did rent said place as aforesaid. Respondents show further that said tenants were seeking to remove and were actually removing their goods from the premises, and because the said Welch & Bacon and their successor, the said Jno. A. Davis, receiver...