Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Ga. 443

Edwards v. Stinson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1877-08-15

Claim. Levy and sale. Sales. Liens. Before Judge Oraweoed. Talbot Superior Court. March Term, 1877. Young N. Edwards, defendant in fi. fa., was administrator of John Edward’s estate; as such, he sold 500 acres of land, which was bid off by IL Couch, who sold to defendant and Gibson. Gibson sold to defendant, who used the shares in the estate of his. four brothers to pay for the land; to raise money to pay his brothers, he sold the land to Chapman, who failed to pay for it.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1947

5 state decisions

2018771880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Warner, Chief Justice.

¶1This was a claim case, on the trial of which the jury, under the charge of the court, found the property subject to the plaintiff’s fi. fa. which had been levied thereon. One of the errors complained of is the following charge of the court, which was excepted to :

¶21. The court charged the jury, “ that if they believed that, at the time of making the deed from Young N. Edwards, defendant in fi. fa., to his four brothers, he did so in good faith, and that it was a bona fide trade in the discharge of his indebtedness to them, that then it was not subject to the fi. fa.; but if they believed that, at the time, there was a reservation for the benefit of the defendant in fi.fa., or any other person-for him, it would be subject.”

¶32. The claimant also excepted to the qualification of his two requests to charge, which were given as requested, with *446the following qualification: “ provided that trade between defendant in ft. fa. and his four brothers was made in good faith, as before charged.” In view of the evidence'contained in the record, there was no error in the charge complained of, nor in charging the two requests of the claimant with the qualification thereto, as set forth in the bill of exceptions.

¶4Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

/59/ga/443 · .json · Public domain