40 Ga. App. 677 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1929
This was a suit by the sheriff for the use of the transferee of a note secured by a security deed, to recover the difference between the bid made by the defendant at a public sale of the land described in the deed, under the levy of a fi. fa. based on the note, and the price at which the property was resold after the defendant had failed to comply with his bid. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepts to the order overruling his motion for new trial. When this case was formerly adjudicated by this court, it was held that there was nothing to show the validity of the sale at which the defendant bought the land, for the reason that it did not appear that any reconveyance of the land had been made to the defendant in fi. fa. Corley v. Jarrell, 36 Ga. App. 225 (136 S. E. 177). The plaintiff, in order to avoid the effect of that decision, sought to show such a valid reconvej^ance, by setting up a transfer of the security deed from the original grantee to the plaintiff in fi. fa. and a subsequent conveyance of the land by the plaintiff in fi. fa. to the defendant in fi. fa., filed and recorded prior to the levj’, as provided by law. It appears that the original grantee in the security deed, in transferring the note secured by the deed to the plaintiff in fi. fa., did not transfer the title to the land held as securit3q but merely undertook to “transfer the deed herein with all our rights and titles."
“For the holder of the security deed to transfer the notes or merely to transfer the security deed (that is, by a mere entry of. transfer which does not also purport to convey the land itself) does not pass the legal title to the transferee; but a transfer of the notes,
Judgment reversed.
