Yancey Bros. v. Caldwell

1. The levy of the sheriff did not show that the Caterpillar D-7 tractor was in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy; therefore ordinarily the burden of proof would have been on the plaintiff in fi. fa. Code § 39-904. In the present case the claimant assumed the burden of proof by first introducing evidence. See in this connection, Home Finance Co. v. United Motor Sales, 91 Ga. App. 679 (86 S. E. 2d 659); and cases cited.

2. The contention of the claimant is that the conditional-sale contract dated June 21,1954, and recorded on November 26,1954, in the office of…