Schley County GaArchives Court.....Collins, Et Al October 1893
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Harris Hill http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00011.html#0002514 September 16, 2006, 8:29 am

Source: Orig. Document, Schley County Courthouse
Written: October 1893

Schley Superior Court, Oct. term 1893.

T.A. Collins Vs. Wm Hobbs & Peter Stewart, claimant
Fifa, levy & claim in Justice Court, 946 Dist. G.M. & verdict finding property 
not subject.

In answer to writ of certerari sued out by the Plaintiff in fifa in above 
stated case & served upon him, respondent says it is true that said cause come 
on to be heard before a jury in said court (unreadable) and from and at that 
time as alledged in petition for certerari, respondent further admits that 
before joining issue the Pltff in fifa moved to dismiss the appeal because 
judgment as stated in the appeal was for $(unreadable).  The court overruled 
the motion to dismiss the appeal as alledged in petition for certiorari.  
Issue was then joined & T.A. Collins sworn in behalf of himself testified that 
I know the property claimed, the mule, was in possession of William Hobbs on 
the date of the mortgage.  William Hobbs drove the mule to Ellaville on the 
day he gave me the mortgage attached to the affidavit of foreclosure in this 
case.

CROSS
I do not know of my own knowledge who the mule belonged to on that day.  
William Hobbs told me he owned the mule & I went to the Clerk’s office & 
searched the record and could find nothing against the mule and I sold William 
Hobbs goods & took this mortgage on the mule.  That was on March 29th 1892.  

Plaintiff introduced the mortgage.  Plaintiff also introduced the affidavit of 
foreclosure & mortgage fifa with the entry of levy thereon by the Constable 
H.L. Murray.  Plaintiff then closed.

Claimant then introduced Peter Stewart in his own behalf who being duly sworn 
said, I know the mule claimed & consider it my property & have always so 
considered.

CROSS
I made a contract in 1892, in Jany I think, with the Deft William Hobbs to 
farm for standing rent and I made a bargain with him if he would pay me $100 
in the fall for the mule now claimed of me, that he could have the mule.  I 
gave the mule to William Hobbs when I made the bargain with him.  If Williams 
Hobbs had paid me $100.00 in the fall the mule would have been William Hobbs, 
but he did not pay me.  William Hobbs kept possession of said mule until about 
Oct 1892 & I took him back.  One hundred dollars was the price agreed upon for 
the mule & no further contract would have to have been made in the fall except 
the payment of the $100.00 to me by William Hobbs but he did not pay me & the 
title of the mule stayed in me as the mule was mine until it was paid for.  I 
have always considered the mule mine.  There was no writing about the trade& 
no record of it.  Claimant closed.

Pltff reintroduced T.A. Collins who swore that he let William Hobbs have the 
goods in the amt of $37.57 on the mortgage & security of the mule therein 
described and now claimed.

CROSS
William Hobbs owed me in 1891 and also gave me a mortgage on said mule.  
William Hobbs sworn in behalf of Pltff said, I know the mule claimed in the 
spring of 1891.  I bought the mule from Mr. Peter Stewart & agreed to pay him 
$100.00 for it.  I could not pay for it & in the fall of 1891 Mr. Stewart took 
the mule back.  In 1892, I made a trade with Mr. Stewart to pay him standing 
rent & bought the mule from him.  I agreed to pay him $100.00 in the fall of 
(unreadable).  Nothing was said about the title staying in Mr. Stewart.  I 
traded for the mule in January 1892, carried the mule home & kept him until 
the fall when Mr. Stewart asked me to let him have the mule back & pay him 
rent for it.  I owned the mule at the time I gave Mr. Collins the mortgage on 
it.  Plaintiff closed.

The jury after argument had rendered the following verdict.  We the jury find 
the property not subject wherefore it is ordered by the court that the 
property is not subject and it is further ordered that the claimant recover of 
the plaintiff the sum of (blank) dollars, cost of the copy of the fifa, 
warrant & bonds, verdict and judgment as motion to dismiss with judgment 
(torn) hereto annexed all of which (torn) submitted.

L.A. Giles, N.P. J.P.






Additional Comments:
et al names are T.A. Collins, Wm. Hobbs & Peter Stewart.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/schley/court/collins490gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/

File size: 4.8 Kb