S. T. Coleman & Burden Co v. Rice

• Decision Date: 23 July 1898
• Citation: 105 Ga. 163,31 S.E. 424
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: S. T. COLEMAN & BURDEN CO. v. RICE.

31 S.E. 424

105 Ga. 163

S. T. COLEMAN & BURDEN CO.

v.RICE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 23, 1898.

Presumptions—Title to Property.

Title to property in a certain person, once proved or admitted, is presumed to continue until the contrary is proved. It was therefore error, in the trial of a claim filed to the levy of a fi. fa. upon land, for the court to dismiss the levy on the ground that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case, after claimant admitted title in the defendant in fi. fa., though the admission related to a period antedating the judgment.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Trial of property between Ira A. Rice and the S. T. Coleman & Burden Company. Judgment for claimant, and the company brings error. Reversed.

Smith & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Winship and Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for defendant in error.

LEWIS, J. When property is levied on by an execution, and claimed by a third party, the statute imposes the burden of proof upon the plaintiff in fi. fa. in all cases where the property levied on is at the time of such levy not in the possession of the defendant in execution. Civ. Code, § 4624. The law recognizes two ways in which the plaintiff may make out his case: First. By showing possession in the defendant in fi. fa. since the judgment. This simply raises a presumption of title in the defendant, which, of course, can be rebutted by proof. Secondly. Where no such possession is shown, then it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove title in the defendant in fi. fa. If such title is shown or admitted after the judgment, then the proof becomes conclusive; but, if it is shown to have existed in the defendant before the judgment, it is then presumed that it remains in the defendant until the contrary is shown. "A seisin, once proved or admitted, is presumed to continue until a disseisin is proved." 1 Greenl. Ev. § 42. In the case of Anderson v. Blythe, 54 Ga. 508, Bleckley, J., lays down this sound rule of evidence: "The doctrine that a state of things once existing is presumed to continue until a change, or some adequate cause of change, appears, or until a presumption of change arises out of the nature of the subject, is an element of universal law. Without such a principle we could count upon the stability of nothing, and to assure ourselves of a set of conditions at one period of time would afford no ground for inferring the same conditions at any other period. This presumption of continuance is a well-recognized principle of evidence. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 41." Had this been a suit in ejectment, the plaintiff would unquestionably have made out a prima facie case after showing title in himself, it matters not at what time the proof indicated the title accrued. Watts v. Starr, 86 Ga. 392-396, 12 S. E. 585. A more rigid rule would not be applied in a claim case, when the burden is on...