Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Hill v. Kitchens

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 15, 1922No. 19417PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. Ordinarily, advertisement is not essential to the validity of a sale under a fi. fa.; and where imperfect advertisement is made, the irregularity therein will not vitiate the sale, but the remedy of the de*790fendant in fi. fa. would be against the officer. The purchaser at a sheriff’s sale depends upon “the.judgment, the levy» and the deed,” and all other questions are between the parties to the judgment and the officer making the sale. Brooks v. Rooney, 11 Ga. 423 (56 Am. D. 430); Conley v. Redwine, 109 Ga. 640 (2), 644 (35 S. E. 92); Johnson v. Reese, 28 Ga. 353, 356 (73 Am. D. 757) ;…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Willis v. HarrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. Brooks v. RooneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  3. Kimbrough v. KimbroughSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  4. Stanley v. StembridgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  5. Conley v. RedwineSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Nixon v. TriberIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Williams v. Federal Land BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
  3. Crain v. DanielCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
  4. Atlantic Fire Insurance v. RyalsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  5. Kenner v. KennerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API