127 Ga. App. 872 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1973
The Ashburn Bank levied upon a Piper Cub airplane and a 1960 Ford truck to satisfy its judgment against Kermit M. Gentry. Thereafter, claims were filed by Gentry, as president of Ashburn Air Service, Inc., to the airplane and by his father, K. T. Gentry, to the truck. The cases were tried together, resulting in verdicts and judgments in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa., from which judgments the claimants appeal. Held:
1. The judgment against the claimant air service was authorized by evidence to the following effect: In July or August prior to the levy on December 4, 1969, the president of the plaintiff in fi. fa. bank was informed that the airplane belonged to the defendant in fi. fa., Kermit M. Gentry. When levied on, the airplane was parked at the Ashburn Airport in Turner County, the facilities of which airport the defendant in fi. fa. leased. The defendant in fi. fa. and his wife, residents of Irwin County, owned all of the stock of the claimant, a purported Turner County corporation. The defendant in fi. fa. was not sure who the corporation’s officers were, as was its purported vice president. The purported corporation’s sole bank account was with the plaintiff in fi. fa., whose ledger cards indicated that the claimant was a proprietorship of the defendant in fi. fa. Although the 1,000 shares of the claimant’s stock were paid for in cash at $1 per share, according to the defendant in fi. fa., and although $500 in paid-in capital is necessary for a corporation to commence business in this State, the claimant’s sole bank account had a balance of only $89.17 only
2. The judgment against claimant K. T. Gentry was authorized by evidence to the following effect: The untitled (1960 model) truck formerly belonged to the defendant in fi. fa. and was bought by the claimant (defendant in fi. fa.’s father) at a judicial sale on March 30, 1968. Thereafter, the claimant, a farmer in Irwin County, used the truck very little. The truck was used by the defendant in fi. fa. and others on various occasions; was borrowed several times with the permission of the defendant in fi. fa.; was observed in use at the Ashburn Airport on several occasions after 1968, including its admitted use by the. defendant in fi. fa. in his dusting operation for "a month or two” prior to the present (February 10, 1969) levy; and contained an airplane engine when it was levied on at the airport in Turner County, whose facilities the defendant in fi. fa. leased for the operation of his business. The claimant obtained a loan from the Citizens Bank of Ashburn with which to purchase the truck, the proceeds
The plaintiff in fi. fa. showed at least constructive possession of the truck in the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy, whereupon the burden of proof was shifted from the plaintiff in fi. fa. to the claimant. Martin v. Cowan, 134 Ga. 477 (68 SE 69); Stephens v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 147 Ga. 410 (94 SE 245); Veal v. Veal, 192 Ga. 503 (15 SE2d 725); Jones Motor Co. v. Finch Motor Co., 34 Ga. App. 399 (129 SE 915). The evidence introduced, together with inferences justified by evidence never offered, failed to show that the truck levied on was the property of the claimant, rather than of the defendant in fi. fa.
3. The admission in evidence of the bank ledgers of the claimant air service with the plaintiff in fi. fa. bank, was not error. The amounts, dates, character, and periodic balances of the deposits made in the account, acknowledged by the defendant in fi. fa. to have been the claim
4. The trial judge did not err in sustaining the objection of the plaintiff in fi. fa. bank to the introduction of evidence of the payment of attorney’s fees by the claimant air service. Even if such evidence can be regarded as in rebuttal of testimony concerning the claimant’s sole bank account, its exclusion was not reversible error, since the mere payment of attorney’s fees would not establish the legal existence of the purported corporation. Even if such fees were paid from funds which did not pass through the bank account, moreover, the amount of the fees plus the total bank deposits did not total the minimum amount required under the law and the claimant’s own charter in order to transact business.
5. Where counsel for the claimant air service and the defendant in fi. fa. had just obtained from the defendant in fi. fa. an affirmative answer to the question as to whether the latter had received, on or about the date of the purported incorporation, any statement for his (counsel’s) services, it was not an expression of opinion on the part of the judge when he stated that "As I understand the last question has to do with whether or not he paid attorney’s fees,” rather than saying ". . . it paid, etc.,” nor when he went on to explain his ruling as to the admissibility of rebuttal evidence. The judgments are not erroneous for any reason urged.
Judgments affirmed.