Case ID: ga_164/html/0591-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Hill, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maynard v. Burson, administrator.
    No. 5707.
    July 30, 1927.
    Claim. Before Judge Stark. Barrow superior court. September 25, 1926.
    J. G-. Thurmond, now deceased, on February 8, 1923, swore out an attachment against Mrs. J. C. Day, and on February 14, 1923, had it levied on “one house and lot within the town of Statham, Georgia, Barrow County, one seven-room dwelling-house fronting First Street, adjoining property on the north by W. H. Quarter-man, northwest by Seaboard Air-Line Railway, together with all other buildings located thereon.” At the March term, 1925, of Barrow superior court, the plaintiff in attachment filed his declaration in attachment. At the April term (April 30, 1925) the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment on the declaration in attachment. On May 6, 1925, execution issued thereon, and was entered on the general execution docket of Barrow County on. the same day. On February 17, 1923, the entry of levy of the attachment was duly entered on the attachment docket of the county. On October 7, 1925, the execution issued upon the judgment upon the declaration' in attachment was levied upon the property upon which the attachment had been levied in the first instance. On November 3, 1925, J. H. Maynard filed his claim. On August 18, 1923, he filed in Fulton superior court an equitable petition against J. C. Day and Mrs. J. C. Day, seeking to have surrendered and canceled a certain deed from J. C. Day to Mrs. J. C. Day, conveying the property so levied upon, dated January 3, 1911, and recorded in the clerk’s office of the superior court of Jackson County. On April 13, 1926, the claimant obtained a decree as prayed. It does not appear that the plaintiff in fi. fa. was a party to the last-mentioned suit. At the conclusion of the evidence in the present case the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa. The claimant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.
   Hill, J.

Under tlie pleadings and evidence in this case the court did not err in the admission and rejection of certain evidence, or in directing' a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa.

Attachment, 6 C. J. p. 395, n. 1; p. 396, n. 5; p. 401, n. 89.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

J. C. Pratt, for plaintiff in error. PL. E. Chandler; contra.