Wi1s0n v. Garrick
Decision Date | 28 February 1884 |
Citation | 72 Ga. 660 |
Parties | Wi1s0n . vs. Garrick et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Levy and Sale. Notice. Justices\' Courts. Presumption. Vendor and Purchaser. Before Judge Stewart. Coweta Superior Court. September Term, 1883.
Mrs. Sallie Wilson brought trover against M. J. Garrick and W. L. Carlton to recover a mule. The facts were, in brief, as follows: A judgment was recovered by Brantly, agent for Austin & Ellis, against William Wilson and Sallie Wilson, and execution issued and was levied on the mule in dispute. Mrs. Wilson interposed a claim, alleging that it had been set apart to her as an exemption for the benefit of herself and children, but the property was not replevied. Plaintiff made affidavit before the justice that it was expensive to keep and wash liable to deterioration, and prayed that the mule be sold and the money brought into court; and on the same day the magistrate granted an order to that effect, reciting that the case had been appealed to the superior court; and the sale was advertised and made by the constable on the next court day. Defendants claim under that sale, and its validity was the leading point in dispute. The application and order were objected to, but were admitted in evidence. They did not show notice of the application before granting the order. J. F. Methvin, Esq., for plaintiff, testified that at the sale one of the defendants asked him if he could safely buy the mule, and he replied that the mule was being sold illegally; that the officer was selling it without any authority of law at all, and that whoever bought it would get with it " a first-class lawsuit." Mrs. Wilson also denied service of the summons on which the judgment against her was founded.
The jury found for the defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the following grounds:
(1.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
(2.) Because the court charged as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Smith
...of the order that it should state the facts showing why the notice was not given. According to the ruling of this court in Wilson v. Garrick, 72 Ga. 660, such an order granted by a justice of the peace was not rendered invalid because it did not fully recite the facts authorizing the sale, ......
- Keese v. Coleman & Co.
- Wilson v. Garrick
-
Moore v. Smith
...of the order that it should state the facts showing why the notice was not given. According to the ruling of this court in Wilson v. Garrick, 72 Ga. 660, such an granted by a justice of the peace was not rendered invalid because it did not fully recite the facts authorizing the sale, strict......