Royce & Co. v. Gazan

Decision Date31 October 1885
Citation76 Ga. 79
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesRoyce & Company et al. vs. Gazan, and vice versa.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

[Attachments in favor of H. A. Royce & Co. and Loomis & Hart were levied upon a stock of goods and a house and lot, as the property of Nathan Gazan, and Simon Gazan interposed a claim thereto. The cases were tried together by agreement.

The claimant's title rested upon a purchase claimed to have been made from the defendant in payment of a preexisting indebtedness, except a balance, which was paid to the defendant in money. These debts were evidenced by certain notes and drafts. The plaintiffs denied the bona fide making of this sale, and insisted that the alleged transfer was fraudulent.

The jury found the property not subject. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the following grounds:

(1) to (3.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.

(4.) Because the court erred in overruling plaintiff's objection to the admission of the notes and drafts purport-ing to be signed by Nathan Gazan, upon proof of the execution of the same by the evidence of J. G. McCall that he was acquainted whit the handwriting, that the signatures were Gazan\'s signatures, and that, the notes shown were the identical notes delivered to him as attorney for Nathan Gazan in payment for the goods;—the objection being that said Gazan was present in court and that his evidence would be the best evidence of their execution. (5) Abandoned.

(6.) Because the court erred in allowing the claimant to assume the burden of proof, with its consequent rights and privileges, by admitting possession of the properly levied on in the defendant at the time of the levy, over the objection of plaintiff's counsel on the ground that the claimant bad no right to make such admission and assume such anus over plaintiffs objection; that said admission was false; that, as a matter of fact, the possession was in the claimant, and that the court should hear evidence as to the possession and by the proof determine where to place the onus.

(7.) Because the court erred in continuing said ruling of force, and allowing claimant's counsel to conclude, after it appeared to the court, from the testimony of the claimant himself (and which was conceded by plaintiff) that the possession of said property was in said claimant at the time of the levy. [The court certified that the order of arguments was arranged by counsel themselves, under the previous ruling of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Montgomery v. Pacific & Southern Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 11 avril 1974
    ... ... that he acted in good faith (or without malice) 'the facts, all the facts, are to be considered in arriving at the truth of his real motive.' Royce & Co. v. Gazan, 76 Ga. 79, 80(5); Childers v. Ackerman Constr. Co., 211 Ga. 350(3) at 354, 86 S.E.2d 227; Bowen v. Consolidated Mortg. &c. Corp., ... ...
  • Turner v. Elliott
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 janvier 1907
    ... ... adversary of submitting the requisite proof, but he conceds ... the truth of such facts. Royce v. Gazan, 76 Ga. 79 ... When it is admitted by the claimant that the defendant in ... execution was in possession of the property at the date of ... ...
  • Thibadeau v. Crane
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 1 avril 1974
    ... ...         In Royce & Co. v. Gazan, 76 Ga. 79, 80(5), it was held: 'A party may testify to his intention. It is evidence to be considered, but the facts, all the ... ...
  • Johnson v. The State Of Ga.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 31 octobre 1885

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT