Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ga. 205

Patterson v. Esterling

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1859-01-15

Levy and claim, in Sumter Superior Court. Tried before Judge Allen, at September Term, 1858. On the trial of this cause in the Court below, the plaintiff in fi. fa. introduced in evidence, a mortgage fi. fa. against lot of land number two hundred and fourteen, in the twenty-eighth district of Sumter county, which had been levied on said land. The mortgage had been properly recorded.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1961

3 state decisions

10185918601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

Lumpkin, J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3Bennett Esteriing mortgaged to Wm. J. Patterson lot of land No. 214, in the 28th district of Sumter county. The mortgage was duly recorded. The land was subsequently-sold under a common law/i./er., and knocked down to Newman McBain. Patterson was present at the sale. All admit that he gave notice of his mortgage lien. Glover, the Sheriff, testifies that proclamation was made about the time the land was knocked off He thought the hammer came down before the proclamation was made, but was not certain about it. James W. Ragan swears positively that the notice was given before the land was knocked off, And McBain him*207self being-sworn, says, that notice was given by Patterson before the land was bid off; and that he desired to withdraw his bid, and the Sheriff would not permit him to do so. He further admits, that he had heard of the mortgage before the day of sale, but thought that it was settled.

¶4Suppose Patterson, being present, had kept silent, his mortgage having been duly recorded, would he have lost his lien? Surely not. But upon the fact of actual notice, the weight of the proof is entirely with Patterson. There can be no doubit but that he is entitled to enforce his lien on the land.

¶5Judgment reversed.

McDonald J. absent.
/27/ga/205 · .json · Public domain