Groover v. Inman

• Decision Date: 31 January 1878
• Citation: 60 Ga. 407
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: Groover, Stubbs & Co. v. Inman, administratrix, et al., administrators.

60 Ga. 407

Groover, Stubbs & Co. v. Inman, administratrix, et al., administrators.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(January Term, 1878.)

Judgments. Practice in the Superior Court Liens. Laws. Evidence. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before Judge Hansell. Lowndes Superior Court. May Term, 1877.

The following, taken in connection with the decision, sufficiently reports this case:

Groover, Stubbs & Co. objected to the execution offered in evidence by Mary Inman, administratrix, et al., administrators, because said execution appeared on its face to have been issued against Daniel I. Inman and Malcom D. Jones, and the name of Daniel I. Inman appeared to have been changed wherever it occurred in said execution, to Daniel I. Jones, said alteration being in a different ink from the other writing in said execution, and not being in the handwriting of the clerk who wrote and signed said execution; because said execution did not appear to be an execution against Daniel I. Jones; and because said execution did not appear to have been issued under a valid judgment; all of which objections were overruled.

A. T. McInTyre; H. G. Turner, for plaintiffs in error.

N. J. Hammond; J. R. Alexander; A. H. Smith, for defendants.

Wasner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the court below upon the question *as to whether Groover, Stubbs & Co, or whether the administrators of Jeremiah Inman, deceased, were entitled to the money arising from the sale of the property of Daniel I. Jones, deceased, (which had been sold by consent) on a bill filed to marshal the assets of Jones\' estate. The question was submitted to the court for decision, without the intervention of a jury. After hearing the evidence, the court decreed that the administrators of J. Inman had a valid judgment against Daniel I. Jones, deceased, and ordered the money to be paid to that judgment, to the exclusion of the claim of Groover, Stubbs & Co, to which decision and judgment Groover, Stubbs & Co. excepted. Groover, Stubbs & Co. claimed the money under an equitable mortgage executed to them by Daniel I. Jones in his lifetime. The administrators of J. Inman claimed the money on a judgment obtained in Burke superior court against Daniel I. Jones, in November, 1868, which was of older date than Groover, Stubbs & Co.\'s mortgage. The administrators of Inman read in evidence an exemplification of the record of the suit, judgment, and execution, from Burke superior court over the objections of Groover, Stubbs & Co, from which it appears that suit was instituted in that county by Jeremiah Inman in his lifetime against Daniel I. Jones, of the county of Lowndes, and M. D. Jones of the said county of Burke, on a joint and several promissory note made by them for the sum of $4,145.00. There does not appear in the record to have been any issuable defense filed on oath to said suit. The presiding judge of the court awarded as follows: "I award to the plaintiff the sum of forty-one hundred and forty-five dollars principal debt, and interest thereon from the fourth day of March, A. D. eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, and costs of suit.

(Signed) Wm. Gibson, Judge."

Where...