Stanfield v. Downing Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1938
• Docket Number: 12344.
• Citation: 199 S.E. 113,186 Ga. 568
• Parties: STANFIELD v. DOWNING CO., Inc.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

199 S.E. 113

186 Ga. 568

STANFIELD v. DOWNING CO., Inc.

No. 12344.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 15, 1938

Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; J. T. Grice, Judge.

Action on an open account against D. L. Stanfield, as guardian of Marshall D. Hursey, wherein a judgment was entered against defendant on which an execution was issued which was caused to be levied on land as the individual property of the defendant by J. M. Stanfield as the remote transferee of the execution and a claim was interposed by Downing Company Incorporated. Judgment for claimant, and J. M. Stanfield brings error.

Affirmed.

P. M Anderson, of Claxton, and W. T. Burkhalter, of Reidville, for plaintiff in error.

C. L Cowart, of Glennville, for defendant in error.

A suit on open account was instituted against D. L. Stanfield, alleged to be 'guardian' of Marshall D. Hursey. In the petition it was alleged that the defendant 'as such guardian of the said' ward 'is indebted to petitioner' in a named sum 'for board and nursing' of the ward, which 'is now due to your petitioner by the said D. L. Stanfield, guardian.' The defendant's answer admitted that he was the duly qualified guardian of the ward, and joined issue on all other material allegations. In the answer it was alleged that the defendant had in hand a stated sum of money 'belonging to the estate of' the ward, to which claims were being asserted by named persons, additional to the plaintiff's demand. Request was made 'that such direction be given as would protect this defendant, and that no judgment be taken for any amount more than the amount in hand.' A verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of his demand was returned, on which the plaintiff's attorney entered judgment which declared that 'the plaintiff have and recover of the defendant' a specified amount. An execution was issued on that judgment, commanding 'that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, of D. L. Stanfield, guardian of M. D. Hursey, you cause to be made the' stated amount of the judgment. A remote transferee of the execution caused it to be levied on land as the individual property of D. L. Stanfield. A claim was interposed by the holder of a junior security deed executed by Stanfield and another person engaged in business as partners. A verdict for the claimant was directed. The plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

Syllabus OPINION.

ATKINSON Presiding Justice.

1. The judgment must be construed with reference to the pleadings. It appears from these that the defendant was guardian for his ward, and that the action was founded on debt of the ward there being no charge of mismanagement or other ground of...