Where the plaintiff in a mortgage execution wrongfully causes personal property described in the execution to be brought from Alabama into Georgia for the purpose of having it levied upon under the execution, a levy on the property under such circumstances is illegal and void, in the absence of acquiescence and consent of the mortgagor.
The evidence shows without dispute that the plaintiff below procured the transfer of the airplane from Alabama to Georgia for the purpose of having it levied on under his mortgage foreclosure. While he stated that he had it brought to LaGrange to have an estimate made on the cost of repairs, he also stated that he gave his agent money with which to pay the rent on the plane on its trip to LaGrange and for the time of return, which shows that he did not contemplate that it would return. But even if it could be said that Smith in good faith had the plane brought to LaGrange for the purpose of having repair estimates made, he in fact procured the levy under circumstances equivalent to an original intention to bring it to LaGrange for levy. This constituted a breach of the bailment, if in fact there was one, and was fraudulent and unconscionable, and renders the levy void and unenforceable. . . "Jurisdiction of property obtained by illegal methods will not support an action in reference thereto." 14 Am. Jur., § 185, p. 382, n. 3; 37 A.L.R. 1255; 15 C. J., § 98. Code § 67-703 provides that mortgaged property may be levied on wherever it may be found but it does *Page 155
not mean that the process afforded extraterritorial jurisdiction. The circumstances make the levy one analogous to one in Alabama, or to one where a sheriff brought the property from Alabama and then made a levy under the execution, which would be illegal and void. Upton v. Craig,
Judgment reversed. Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.
