Case Name: BANK OF MADISON v. BELL (two cases). In re SMITH
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-10-11
Citations: 275 F. 835
Docket Number: Nos. 3659, 3663
Parties: BANK OF MADISON v. BELL (two cases). In re SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
BANK OF MADISON v. BELL (two cases). In re SMITH.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 11, 1921.)
Nos. 3659, 3663.
Bankruptcy <§=>184(2)—Unrecorded assignment of bond for title subordinate to lien of judgment creditor.
Under the law of Georgia, the right of an assignee in an unrecorded assignment of a bond for title to land as security for a debt is subordinate to the lien of a judgment creditor of the assignor, and the debtor’s trustee in bankruptcy, having the rights of a judgment creditor, has a Lien which takes precedence of the unrecorded assignment.
Petition to Superintend and Revise, and Appeal from, the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge.
<5=r>For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Action by the Bank of Madison against Austin Beil, trustee in bankruptcy of W. A. Smith, bankrupt. Petition by Bank of Madison to superintend and revise, and appeal from, an adverse decree.
Affirmed.
Howell C. Erwin, of Athens, Ga., for petitioner.
Stephen C. Upson, of Athens, Ga., for respondent.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURJAM.
The ruling complained of was to the effect that under the law of Georgia the right of the assignee in an unrecorded assignment of a bond for title to land as security for a debt is subordinate to the lien of a judgment creditor of the assignor, and that the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy, having the rights of a judgment creditor, has a lien which takes precedence of the unrecorded assignment of the bond for title. That ruling is sustained by the decision of this court in the case of Fuller v. Atlanta National Bank, 254 Fed. 278, 165 C. C. A. 566.
As we have not been convinced that this court was in error in its above mentioned former ruling, the decree under review is affirmed.