Keaton v. Forrester
| Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
| Citation | 63 Ga. 206 |
| Parties | Keaton. v. Forrester. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate, organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]
Claim. Levy and sale. Before Judge Crisp. Dougherty Superior Court. April Term, 1879.
Report unnecessary.
L. P. D. Warren; H. Morgan; Strozer & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Vason & Davis; W. T. Jones, for defendant.
After the evidence for the plaintiff in execution was all in, the court dismissed the levy for uncertainty, the description of the property levied upon being, as entered by the officer, one-half of a certain specified lot of land, without pointing out which half, or saying whether it was a divided or an undivided half. The claim papers were more definite than the levy; they stated expressly that it was the part of the lot lying south of a certain road which was levied upon, and to which the claim was asserted. It is urged that the claim affidavit and bond aided the levy for the purpose of this case, and that the court ought to have looked to them as well as the entry on the fi. fa., and that the uncertainty of the levy was changed into certainty by the affidavit and *bond. The reason assigned by the court for dismissing the levy may be sound or unsound, but the judgment of dismissal was indubitably correct. The evidence did not show that the lot or any part of it, any half, divided or undivided, was subject. There was no evidence of title in the defendant in fi. fa., or of any possession by him at or after the rendition of judgment. The onus was not changed, and there was nothing for the jury to try.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snell v. Libby
...means of distinguishing the portion sold from the residue, is void. 2 Freeman on Executions, 3d Ed., Sec. 281; 23 C.J. 621. See Keaton v. Forrester, 63 Ga. 206. Compare Larrabee v. Hodgkins, 58 Me. The case discloses, however, that the tenant in this action claims title to the demanded prem......
-
Boyd v. Wilson
...description were superfluous. And see Lick v. O'Donnell, 3 Cal. 59, cited in McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645, 10S. E. Rep. 441. In Keaton v. Forrester, 63 Ga. 206, the decision was put by this court, not upon the insufficiency of the levy, but upon the failure of the evidence to establish titl......
- Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ross
-
Boyd v. Wilson
...this description were superfluous. And see Lick v. O'Donnell, 3 Cal. 59, cited in McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645, 10 S.E. 441. In Keaton v. Forrester, 63 Ga. 206, the decision put by this court, not upon the insufficiency of the levy, but upon the failure of the evidence to establish title or......