Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ga. 285

Hackenhull v. Westbrook

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1874-07-15

Mortgage. Jurisdiction. Claim. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Knight. Forsyth Superior Court. April Term, 1873. Robert M. Barrett executed a mortgage to John Hackenhull on two lots of land lying in Forsyth county, and on one lot in Dawson county. The mortgage was recorded and foreclosed in the latter county. The execution based on said foreclosure was levied on the two lots situated in Forsyth county.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1936

5 state decisions

301874188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Trippe, Judge.

¶11. The court below committed no error in holding that a mortgage on land must be foreclosed in the county where the land lies. This was the provision of the act of 1799, Cobb Digest 570, and is transferred to the Code, section 3962. This being so, the claimant in this case had the right to object to the mortgage fi. fa. issued from the superior court of Dawsou county and to the proceeding to foreclose in that county, when the land claimed was situate in the county of Forsyth. If the judgment or record showed that the court rendering the judgment did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter, any person whose rights would be affected could, at any time, make the objection : Code, sections 3594, 3596. .

¶22. But it was error in the court after the rejection of tbe^/L fa. to direct the jury to render a verdict for the claimant. In Baker vs. Shepherd, 37 Georgia, 12, it was held “that when the court rejected the plaintiff’sJi. fa. when offered in evi-' denee in a claim case, it was error to allow a verdict to be taken for the claimant. The court should have dismissed plaintiff’s ease.”

¶3For this reason and on this ground the judgment is reversed.

/53/ga/285 · .json · Public domain