Case ID: ga_88/html/0033-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Livingston v. Wright & Hilly.
    1. Where the claimant admits that he paid to the defendant a considerable amount on purchasing the land in question from a third person who had purchased it at a tax sale, it was not error for the court to charge the jury that if they believed from tbe evidence that the defendant, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, suffered the property to go to sale for taxes, and that the purchaser at that sale at the time he received his deed either knew of this fraudulent purpose or had grounds for reasonable suspicion that it existed, and if they further believed that when the deed from such purchaser to the claimant was executed the claimant also knew of such fraudulent purpose on the part of the defendant or had grounds for reasonable suspicion, the jury ought to' find that the tax title is void as against the plaintiffs in ft. fa., (these plaintiffs being mortgagees of the property by a mortgage executed prior to the tax sale, and the ft. fa. being founded on the j udgment of foreclosure.)
    2. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    November 2, 1891.
    Fraud. Tax-title. Debtor and creditor. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. March term, 1891.
    Blalock & Birney, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Code, §§1978, 2640; 69 Ga. 194, 715; 81 Ga. 86; 42 Ga. 250; 67 Ga. 534; 55 Ga. 145, 497; 52 Ga. 596; 8 Ga. 274; 77 Ga. 605; 57 Ga. 172; 44 Ga. 28; 87 Ga. 303; 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. 853, 861, 781.
    Matson & Hill, contra,
    
    cited 50 Ga. 418; 31 Ga. 700; 81 Ga. 340; 31 Ga. 700; 77 Ga. 772.
   Judgment affirmed.

Claim by Livingston was interposed to the levy of a mortgage fi. fa. in favor of Wright & Hilly against Harper on realty covered hy the mortgage. The property was found subject, and a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and for error in the charge stated in the first head-note, was overruled. The property was sold for taxes of Harper after the execution of the mortgage, and was purchased hy Owens, who received a deed thereto and subsequently made a deed to the claimant.