Thompson v. Buice, (No. 5301.)

• Decision Date: 15 July 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 5301.)
• Citation: 162 Ga. 556,134 S.E. 303
• Parties: THOMPSON. v. BUICE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

162 Ga. 556

134 S.E. 303

THOMPSON.

v.BUICE.

(No. 5301.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 15, 1926.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Forsyth County; D. W. Blair, Judge.

Proceeding on execution by H. S. Buice against Willis Thompson, in which Selena Thompson interposed claim. Judgment for plaintiff in fi. fa., and claimant brings error. Affirmed.

J. P. Brooke, of Alpharetta, for plaintiff in error.

A. C. Wheeler, of Gainesville, for defendant in error.

HILL, J. This is a claim case. On August 28, 1922, H. S. Buice obtained a judgment against Willis Thompson. Execution issued on September 8, 1922, and was recorded on September 9, 1922. Three levies were made, one, March 10, 1923, on certain personal property, to which Selena Thompson, the wife of Willis Thompson, defendant in fi. fa., filed her claim on March 19, 1923. Another levy was on 60 acres of land, on which P. C. Buice resided, known as the Rollie Thompson place, to which Selena Thompson filed a claim on March 19, 1923. The third levy, dated March 7, 1923, was on 60 acres of land, whereon Willis Thompson resided, and described in the entry of levy. This land also was claimed by Selena Thompson. All these claims came on to be tried at the August term, 1925, of Forsyth superior court, and, under the direction of the court, were consolidated and tried together; separate verdicts being rendered in each case, finding the property levied on subject to the fi. fa., and one judgment was entered by the court by consent of the parties. A motion for new trial was made by the claimant, on the usual general grounds. She afterwards amended the motion, setting out several special grounds. This motion was overruled, and she excepted. In the bill of exceptions she recites, among other things, two certain exceptions pendente lite filed by her and certified by the court, complaining of matters which took place on the trial of the case.

1. From the first exception pendente lite it appears that, when these cases were called for trial, counsel for plaintiff in fi. fa. moved the court that the cases be consolidated and tried together, to which motion counsel for claimant objected. The court ordered that the three cases be consolidated and tried together before the same jury, and that the jury return a separate verdict in each case. It is insisted by plaintiff in error that the court erred in consolidating and directing that her cases be tried together; that there were three separate and distinct levies, two on land in separate tracts to which claimantderived her title from separate sources, and one on personal property to which the defendant in fi. fa. had not claimed title. We are of the opinion that the court did not err, under the facts of this case, in ordering the cases consolidated and tried together. While there were three levies in the case, there was but one issue, and that is whether the property was subject to the fi. fas. levied upon the property, and, to ascertain this, whether the transaction involved was one between husband and wife, and whether the transaction was fraudulent. The exception to the ruling of the court on this point is without merit.

2. During the trial of the case, at the time the claimant was called upon to...