Legal Opinion
Hicks v. Walker Bros.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 10, 1923No. 14251PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBebe, J.
1. In providing tnat a mortgage shall specify the property on which it is to taice effect, the law does not require such a description as will ’serve to identify the property without the aid of parol evidence. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Co., 120 Ga. 879 (48 S. E. 333); Nussbaum v. Waterman, 9 Ga. App. 56 (2) (70 S. E. 259).
2. Where a fi. fa. is issued upon the foreclosure of a duly attested and properly recorded mortgage on a motor-veliicre, described as “One 1 y2 ton Kissel truck,” and a claim to the property is interposed by one who has subsequently purchased direotly [rom the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- A. S. Thomas Furniture Co. v. T. & C. Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Nichols v. HamptonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
- Beaty v. SearsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Farkas v. DuncanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- First National Bank v. SpicerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- National City Bank v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Stevens Hardware Co. v. Bank of ByromvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- TRUSCO FINANCE COMPANY v. ChildsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Turner v. PlottelCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Klimax Overall Co. v. Converse & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.