Legal Opinion

Whitlock v. Michael

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 10, 1950No. 16992PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The original entry of levy did not disclose in whose possession the property was found at the time of the levy, and therefore, under Code § 39-904, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff in execution, and not upon the claimant. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Crawford, 34 Ga. App. 719 (3) (131 S. E. 103).

The amendment to the levy, which, by consent of counsel, was sought to be made a part of the record in this court, if given consideration as part of the record, would not change the status of the return of the original levy.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. Rothschild & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  2. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dillard v. Jacksons Atlanta Ready Mix Concrete Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  2. Smith v. HartrampfCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API