Smith v. Cook
| Decision Date | 30 September 1883 |
| Citation | 71 Ga. 705 |
| Parties | Smith, administrator. vs. Cook. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bankruptcy. Judgment. Res adjudicata. Principal and Agent. Trusts. Before Judge Bower. Baker Superior Court. May Term, 1883.
Reported in the decision.
D. A. Vason; L. A rnheim, for plaintiff in error.
W. E. Smith; G. J. Wright R. F. Lyon, for defendant.
This was a claim case, and the following are substantially the facts in the case: David Smith sold, and by proper deed conveyed to Frank P. Smith one undivided half interest in certain lands levied on and claimed in this case, which deed was dated 29th day of May, 1860. He also conveyed the other half undivided interest in said lands to said Frank P. Smith by deed, dated in the year 1867. Frank P. Smith conveyed by deed the whole of said premises, on the 19th day of July, 1868, to D. D. Smith. David Smith was the father, and Frank P. and D. D. Smith were his sons. D. D. Smith conveyed by deed these premises to Z. R. Smith, administrator of David Smith, deceased, dated the 17th day of January, 1877. H. J. Cook, in 1875, obtained a decree in Baker superior court against Frank P. Smith for the sum of $3,675, and by said decreethe sale by Frank P. Smith to D. D. Smith and the deed of conveyance from Frank P. Smith to D. D. Smith were set aside and declared void, and that the said premises be sold for the satisfaction of the amount decreed against said Frank P. Smith. A writ of execution issued upon this decree, and was levied upon the premises aforesaid, a claim was interposed by Z. R. Smith, as administrator of David Smith, deceased. Frank P. Smith became a bankrupt and was discharged in bankruptcy before this decree was rendered against him. Frank P. Smith and D. D. Smith wore both parties to the decree above rendered. The property was found subject, and claimant moved for a new trial on many grounds, which was refused by the court below.
1. On the trial of the case, claimant filed what he called a plea of bankruptcy of said Frank P. Smith. Upon motion, the court struck said plea, and this is one ground of the motion for new trial. It is well settled that if a person who has been adjudicated a bankrupt, and has received his discharge in bankruptcy, thereafter suffers a judgment to go against him upon a debt properly provable in bankruptcy, he is bound by such judgment, and all others claiming under or through him as parties or privies.
2. The main question in this case is this: The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Butler
...32 S.E. 610; Snelling v. American Freehold Co., 107 Ga. 854, 33 S.E. 634, 73 Am.St.Rep. 160; Knorr v. Raymond, 73 Ga. 750 (10a); Smith v. Cook, 71 Ga. 705. But plaintiff in error contends that, even if the decree in the former suit would ordinarily have bound them, it has no such effect her......
-
Tubbs v. McCabe
...107 N.E. 543. This is apparent from the fact that in order for it to bar a subsequent action it must be both pleaded and proved. Smith v. Cook, 71 Ga. 705; Schreiber Schomacker Piano Forte Mfg. Co., 152 A.D. 817, 137 N.Y.S. 747, 748; Bryan v. Orient Lumber & C. Co., 55 Okla. 370, 156 P. 897......
-
Shumate v. Ryan
...present it at the proper time and in the proper manner should not be deemed a waiver." Laramore v. McKinzie, 60 Ga. 533. See also Smith v. Cook, 71 Ga. 705. When the plaintiff brings his action upon the original debt, he presents a prima facie case—a good cause of action. It is not his duty......
-
Winter v. Hindin
...on Bankruptcy 454, § 3448; Champion v. Buckingham, 165 Mass. 76, 42 N.E. 498; Collins v. McWalters, 35 Misc. 648, 72 N.Y.S. 203; Smith v. Cook, 71 Ga. 705; Alabama, etc., Co. Crawley, 118 Miss. 272, 79 So. 94. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the legality of the distress for rent is n......