Bank of Tupelo v. Collier
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Justice.
It is contended that the court erred in admitting the execution in evidence, because it describes the lands to be levied on as the lands of Fred W. Hulsey, and in that respect does not follow the decree. It is generally true that an execution must follow the judgment and “describe the parties thereto as described in such judgment” (Code, § 39-104); and that an execution which fails to so follow the judgment is not admissible in evidence over the objection of a claimant. Williams v. At wood, 52 Ga. 585; Smith v. Lockett, 73 Ga. 104 (2); Calhoun v. Williamson, 189 Ga. 65 (3)…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Wilder v. HollandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Bleckley v. BleckleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Huff v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1857
- Knowles v. LawtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1855
- Shiels v. StarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1854
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hayes v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- Grant v. HartSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Bank of Tupelo v. CollierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Hardin v. CouncilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- State Highway Department v. GodfreyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.