Bluthenthal & Bickart v. Bennefield
Supreme Court of Georgia
Money rule. Before Judge Crisp. City court of Americus.. November 9, 1905. Bluthenthal & Bickart foreclosed a mortgage against Melton,, and caused the fi. fa." to be levied on a stock of whiskies} wines,, etc., belonging to the defendant, and under the foreclosure proceedings the property was sold.
Read the full summary
Money rule. Before Judge Crisp. City court of Americus.. November 9, 1905. Bluthenthal & Bickart foreclosed a mortgage against Melton,, and caused the fi. fa." to be levied on a stock of whiskies} wines,, etc., belonging to the defendant, and under the foreclosure proceedings the property was sold. On a rule brought by the plaintiffs to distribute the funds in the hands of the sheriff, Bennefield intervened and prayed that he might recover $136.43, for which amount he had foreclosed a laborer’s lien against Melton. Thu-jury found in favor of the laborer’s lien as claimed by Bennefield,. and a…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
(After stating the facts.) We agree with counsel for plaintiff in error, in the statement made in their brief, that there are only two questions involved in this,case: (1) Was Bennefield such a laborer as would entitle him to a lien? (2) Did. Melton reside in Sumter county at the time of the foreclosure of the lien of Bennefield? The trial judge who passed upon the issues, in- the case, by his finding in favor of the intervenor, answered both questions in the affirmative. And in reviewing his judgment, we have only to determine whether there wás sufficient evidence' to authorize the finding…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lowenstein v. MeyerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Oliver v. Boehm, Bendheim & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aronoff v. WoodardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Brown v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954