Goodwin v. Bowen

• Decision Date: 14 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 11837.,11837.
• Parties: GOODWIN. v. BOWEN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

184 Ga. 408

191 S.E. 691

GOODWIN.

v.BOWEN.

No. 11837.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 14, 1937.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Tift County; R. Eve, Judge.

Proceedings on an execution in favor of L. E. Bowen which was levied on property claimed by P. W. Goodwin. Judgment adjudging the property subject to the execution, and the claimant brings error.

Affirmed.

C. A. Christian, of Tifton, for plaintiff in error.

R. D. Smith, of Tifton, for defendant in error.

HUTCHESON, Justice.

An execution in favor of L. E. Bowen (defendant in error), trading as Tifton Buick Company, issued on March 13, 1933, on a judgment rendered March 6, 1933, was levied on August 19, 1933, on certain growing crops as the property of the defendant in execution, J. L. Turner. To this levy a claim was filed by J. L. Turner, a World War veteran, alleging substantially the following grounds of claim: "In March, 1918, he was drafted in the service of the U. S. Army * * * and served in the infantry of the U. S. Army until August 5, 1919 * * * and that the U. S. Government has paid as a pension, by reason of the service [and certain disabilities] as aforesaid, beginning August, 1921, the sum of $95 per month for part of the time, $152 per month a part of the time, $135 a month a part of the time, $80 per month a part of the time, and $50 per month a part of the time. Deponent says that in addition thereto he drew the sum of $528 from the U. S. Government on his veterans compensation insurance, generally known as a bonus, and that he purchased the lands upon which the crops levied upon were grown with said pensions aforesaid, and with the bonus as aforesaid, and that every dollar of the purchase-price so paid for the lands was derived from the sources as above set out. That in addition thereto deponent says that he financed the crops so levied upon, by purchasing fertilizer, hiring labor to cultivate and harvest as far as the same is harvested, with money he received as a pension as aforesaid, and that said crops are exempt from the claims ofcreditors, same being purchased with the proceeds of awards made under parts 2, 3, and 4, of compensation insurance and maintenance and support allowance of the act of Congress (38 U.S.C.A. 17, sec. 454, U. S. Compiled Statutes, 1925, 9127¹/₂ --22)." The judge to whom the case was submitted without the intervention of a jury, after hearing evidence as to the purchase of the land and the financing of the crops, rendered a judgment finding the crops not subject to levy and sale under the execution. Subsequently to the recording of the execution on March 13, 1933 (whether before or after the filing and adjudication of the claim case above does not appear), J. L. Turner conveyed a portion of the land, on which the crops were grown, to P. W. Goodwin. On June 8, 1935, the execution was levied on this land, and on June 20, 1935, Goodwin filed his claim thereto, pleading the judgment in the former claims case as res adjudicata, and also that the land was exempt from levy and sale as the property of J. L. Turner, for the same reasons as given in the claim filed by Turner, as a World War veteran. Upon the evidence introduced the judge, to whom the case was submitted without the intervention of a jury, found against the plea of "res judicata, " and adjudged the property subject. Goodwin excepted.

1. Whether the plea is one of res judicata (Code, § 110-501; Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598; Hollinshead v. Woodard, 128 Ga. 7, 15, 57 S.E. 79; Kennedy v. McCarthy, 73 Ga. 346; Logan-ville Banking Co. v. Forrester, 17 Ga. App. 246, 87 S.E. 694), or one of estoppel by judgment (Worth v. Carmichael, 114 Ga. 699, 40 S.E. 797; Draper v. Medlock, 122 Ga. 234, 50 S.E. 113, 69 L.R.A. 483, 2 Ann.Cas. 650; Callaway v. Irvin, 123 Ga. 344, 51 S.E. 477; Irvin v. Spratlin, 127 Ga. 240, 55 S.E. 1037, 9 Ann. Cas. 341; Johnson v. Lovelace, 61 Ga. 62), such a judgment as that pleaded does not affect one to whom the claimant in such prior case conveyed the property in dispute before the claim was filed (Smith v. Coker, 110 Ga. 654 (3), 36 S.E. 107; Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Troup, 177 Ga. 456 (2), 170 S.E. 359). The present claimant, inasmuch as he claims title to the property levied on by conveyance subsequent to the...