Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ga. 356

Bell v. Chandler

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1857

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1857-08-15

Ejectment, in Carroll Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, April Term, 1857. This was an action of ejectment brought by Doe ex dem. of John Buchanan and James Bell, against Roe, casual ejector, and Lindsey Chandler tenant in possession, for the recovery of lot of land No. 224, in the county of Carroll. Plaintiff proved title in his lessors, the possession of defendant of the premises in dispute, and closed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1962

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

20185718601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court. —

Benning, J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3The only foundation laid for the introduction of secondary evidence of the was the notice to produce the fi.fa.

¶4What the answer to that notice was, does not appear. The paper called for, ivas a fi fa. It was a paper, therefore, which, it is to be presumed, was not in the possession of the party notified to produce it; but where it belonged, in the Clerk’s office. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that the answer admitted the fi.fa. to be in the possession of the answering party.

¶5[1.] This being so, we think that the foundation for secondary evidence was not sufficient; and therefore, that the Court erred in admitting, as evidence, the copy of the fi.fa.

¶6[2 ] A purchaser at Sherifi’s sale acquires no title, if the Sheriff has no authority to sell. ’ And this is true, whether he has notice of the want of authority or not. A Sheriff .who sells under fi.fa., has no authority to sell, if the fi.fa. stands on no judgment, or if it stands on a satisfied judgment.

¶7It follows, that the charge of the Court was wrong.

¶8The counsel for the defendant in error, Mr. Buchanan, did not defend this charge, but he insisted, that the evidence was such, that it required the verdict to be as it was, no matter what might have been the charge.

¶9But we do not think so.

¶10We do not think, that the possession proved in Chandler, was sufficient. Royall vs. Lessee of Lisle, 15. Ga. Rep. 545.

¶11Then, Chandler, before he took any deed, had notice of Bell’s title.

¶12*360He went into possession in bad faith; that is, of set purpose to acquire a title under the statute of limitations, in fraud of Bell’s title.

¶13Besides, none of the evidence would have been before the jury, if the Court had excluded the fi.fa., and we have determined that the Court should have excluded the ft. fa.

¶14Judgment reversed.

/23/ga/356 · .json · Public domain