Liles v. H. K. Mulford Co.

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Citation: Liles v. H. K. Mulford Co., 52 Ga.App. 674, 184 S.E. 396 (Ga. App. 1936)
• Decision Date: 25 February 1936
• Docket Number: 24888.
• Parties: LILES v. H. K. MULFORD CO.

184 S.E. 396

52 Ga.App. 674

LILES v. H. K. MULFORD CO.

No. 24888.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

February 25, 1936

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in sustaining the certiorari, in finding the property subject to the execution, and in directing the levying officer to proceed with the levy.

Error from Superior Court, Hall County; B. P. Gaillard, Jr., Judge.

Execution proceeding by the H. K. Mulford Company against H. D. Liles. To review a judgment of the superior court sustaining plaintiff in execution's petition in certiorari to review an order of the justice's court dismissing the levy defendant in execution brings error.

Affirmed.

C. W Cain and A. G. Liles, both of Buford, for plaintiff in error.

Hope & Fox and T. Glenn Dorough, all of Gainesville, for defendant in error.

BROYLES Chief Judge.

A common-law fi. fa. in favor of H. K. Mulford Company was levied on an automobile as the property of H. D. Liles, who filed an affidavit of illegality alleging that the automobile was paid for with compensation money received by him as a World War veteran, and therefore was not subject to levy and sale under the fi. fa. On the trial in the justice's court the plaintiff in fi. fa. tendered in evidence the execution together with the entry of levy thereon. The defendant in fi. fa. testified, over objection, that the automobile levied on was purchased with moneys received by him from the United States government under claim No C-1730630. The plaintiff in fi. fa. moved the court to dismiss the affidavit of illegality on the ground that it set up no valid defense, which motion was overruled. The court passed an order dismissing the levy. The plaintiff carried the case by certiorari to the superior court, where the judge sustained the certiorari, holding that the property was subject to the execution and ordering that the levy proceed. To this judgment the defendant excepted.

Section 454 of title 38 of U.S. C.A. provides: "The compensation, insurance, and maintenance and support allowance payable under Parts II, III, and IV, respectively shall not be assignable; shall not be subject to the claims of creditors of any person to whom an award is made under Parts II, III, or IV; and shall be exempt from all taxation." It will be noted that the section is worded with particularity, and deals exhaustively with the subject intended to be covered; and the exemption applies only to compensation, insurance, and allowance, or, in other words to moneys. The statute makes no exemption of, or reference to, properties in which the moneys have been invested. It will be noted further that the inhibition as to claims of creditors and as to taxation is the same. This being true, by analogy, if property purchased with such moneys is subject to taxation, it is likewise subject to claims of creditors. It is well settled that, "where one purchased certain property in this state with funds which had been paid to him by the United States government as compensation for disability incurred while in the military service during the World War, this property is not exempt from taxation by the municipal authorities of the city in which it is located." City Council of Augusta v. Ransom, 179 Ga. 179, 175 S.E. 497. In the opinion in that...