James v. F.J. Cooledge & Bro.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1908 |
| Citation | 60 S.E. 182,129 Ga. 860 |
| Parties | JAMES v. F. J. COOLEDGE & BRO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When an illegality has been filed to the levy of a fi. fa., and has been returned by the levying officer to the proper court for trial, the pleadings are the fi. fa. and the illegality. Miller v. Perkerson, 128 Ga. 465, 57 S.E. 787.
Where the only ground of the illegality to the fi. fa. is alleged to be that the fi. fa., special in its nature and against specific property, is levied upon other property of the defendant, and for that reason the levy is illegal, the court will, on inspection, compare the grounds of the illegality with the fi. fa., and, if the fi. fa. is found to be general, as well as special, the illegality will be dismissed.
An execution, commanding the sheriff that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, of the Georgia Western Cotton Mills, as principal, and J. S. James, as security, and especially of the following lands and improvements thereon of the Georgia Western Cotton Mills, to wit: Town lots of land, Nos. 4, 8 to 25, in lot 62, of said town of Douglasville, Georgia, etc.-is a general execution against the two named defendants, as well as a special execution against the described property.
Where there is a conflict between the bill of exceptions and the transcript of the record, the conflict must be determined by inspection of the transcript. Southern Ry. Co. v. Flemister, 120 Ga. 524, 48 S.E. 160.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 2857-2859.]
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.
Affidavit of illegality between J. S. James and F. J. Cooledge & Bro. From the judgment. James brings error. Affirmed.
J. D. Kilpatrick and J. S. James, for plaintiff in error.
Roberts & Hutcheson and Tye, Peeples, Bryan & Jordan, for defendants in error.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except HOLDEN, J., who did not preside.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trammell v. Shirley, (No. 19042.)
...approved, is not valid, if it is contradicted by the record. Harris v. Vallee & Co., 29 Ga. App. 769 (9), 116 S. E. 642; James v. Cooledge, 129 Ga. 860, 60 S. E. 182; Georgian Co. v. Kinney, 19 Ga. App. 732 (3), 92 S. E. 31. "While it is a well-settled rule that, where a conflict occurs bet......
-
Trammell v. Shirley
...approved, is not valid, if it is contradicted by the record. Harris v. Vallee & Co., 29 Ga.App. 769 (9), 116 S.E. 642; James v. Cooledge, 129 Ga. 860, 60 S.E. 182; Georgian Co. v. Kinney, 19 Ga.App. 732 (3), 92 31. "While it is a well-settled rule that, where a conflict occurs between the r......
-
Johnson v. Sherrer, 14753.
...Bank of Macon, 59 Ga. 840 (3); Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. v. Pritchard, 123 Ga. 320 (1), 51 S.E. 424; James v. F. J. Cooledge & Bros, 129 Ga. 860 (4), 60 S.E. 182; Sistrunk v. Love, 139 Ga. 240, 77 S.E. 21; Crews v. Ransom, 183 Ga. 179 (3), 188 S.E. 1. By analogy, the same rule would appl......
-
Johnson v. Sherrer
... ... R. Co ... v. Pritchard, 123 Ga. 320(1), 51 S.E. 424; James v. F. J ... Cooledge & Bros., 129 Ga. 860(4), 60 S.E. 182; ... ...